indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Jun 1, 2022 3:59:42 GMT -6
It probably won’t be too hard to implement nuclear reactors using mods for rtw3, much like the speed mods we have now. The trick is to associate the mod with an event system that triggers political and economic penalty events once a reactor goes Chernobyl or Fukushima and have a detailed damage system in place to represent reactor damage. If the devs won’t do it, the modding community will. Shouldn’t be too hard. It really shouldnt be possible for a naval reactor to do that. In any case of meltdown due to coolant failure or destruction they should have access to sufficient cooling, ships can deliberately flood out spaces and if there is a meltdown beginning I have a hard time believing someone wouldn't be smart enough to throw open the fire mains and begin to flood the space magazine style. Sure that would likely kill everyone in the room due to the steam becoming a carrier agent, but by and large, if a shipborne reactor melts down the ship is going to sink from having a giant hole melted through the bottom Just going off what current damage a ship takes. It’s possible to suffer a bomb hit on a carrier where a fire rages out of control. The result, while short lived, would still be catastrophic to the surrounding environment (which doesn’t need to be modeled in game) and trigger harsh political and economic penalties for a nation that has poor nuclear safety resulting in raised tensions, and political pressure that consequently raises the operating costs of nuclear propulsion and research. Continued accidents would finally result in a ban taking place. Already we see the reluctance of the Japanese to allow nuclear carriers to dock in Japan. Imagine the outcry from all nations when multiple accidents at sea pike up. |
|
|
|
Post by benjamin1992perry on Jun 1, 2022 4:47:30 GMT -6
Is there any plan to implement ASROC especially on stuff like frigates, destroyers and cruisers, land based ASW like P3s and homing torpedoes.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Jun 1, 2022 9:05:14 GMT -6
Is there any plan to implement ASROC especially on stuff like frigates, destroyers and cruisers, land based ASW like P3s and homing torpedoes. It is mentioned in the expansion catalog. And, since it isn't marked as an ASW weapon on garrisoncholm's screenshots, it'll be treated as a missile and so you will be able to place it on any ships. Land-based ASW is already in the game(PBs give an ASW score and can sink subs as an event). |
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Jun 1, 2022 12:11:25 GMT -6
It really shouldnt be possible for a naval reactor to do that. In any case of meltdown due to coolant failure or destruction they should have access to sufficient cooling, ships can deliberately flood out spaces and if there is a meltdown beginning I have a hard time believing someone wouldn't be smart enough to throw open the fire mains and begin to flood the space magazine style. Sure that would likely kill everyone in the room due to the steam becoming a carrier agent, but by and large, if a shipborne reactor melts down the ship is going to sink from having a giant hole melted through the bottom Just going off what current damage a ship takes. It’s possible to suffer a bomb hit on a carrier where a fire rages out of control. The result, while short lived, would still be catastrophic to the surrounding environment (which doesn’t need to be modeled in game) and trigger harsh political and economic penalties for a nation that has poor nuclear safety resulting in raised tensions, and political pressure that consequently raises the operating costs of nuclear propulsion and research. Continued accidents would finally result in a ban taking place. Already we see the reluctance of the Japanese to allow nuclear carriers to dock in Japan. Imagine the outcry from all nations when multiple accidents at sea pike up. Americans are opposed to making new reactors even though modern ones are far safer. The fact that uneducated politicians and people don't know about the safety of modern reactors isn't surprising, or understand what nuclear reactors even are really. Unless that fire made it to the engineering spaces and the radiation shielding failed (A lot of metal), and the coolant failed, the fire shouldn't spread nuclear material around. That aside, if the graphite in the core did catch fire then while the damage wouldn't be something to sniff at given that would create a radioactive plume the likes we see from old ground impact nuclear bombs, that plume would likely mostly be taking place over ocean water, and unlike a nuke that ship is either going to sink in which case the plume is going to disappear and the water is going to become the radioactive carrier agent or that fire is going to be put out and the plume will stop, either way the plume is stopped at the source. In the case of the water being the carrier agent you are looking at less than 2 years before the most dangerous agents are gone due to breakdown, then its just the long lasting agents like uranium and plutonium which really aren't terribly deadly. That aside, nuclear propulsion for ships is still the safest way to do so, with only one disaster I know of and one potential one that was likely just the subs surfacing equipment failing. And considering that the one known disaster was Russian in nature then I personally say we shouldn't factor it in because of how terribly unsafe their reactors have consistently proven to be. I think one of the biggest shames is that most people get their education on radiation and nuclear reactors from popular media and from the epa. most people don't even understand what radiation is. |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 1, 2022 12:35:07 GMT -6
Just going off what current damage a ship takes. It’s possible to suffer a bomb hit on a carrier where a fire rages out of control. The result, while short lived, would still be catastrophic to the surrounding environment (which doesn’t need to be modeled in game) and trigger harsh political and economic penalties for a nation that has poor nuclear safety resulting in raised tensions, and political pressure that consequently raises the operating costs of nuclear propulsion and research. Continued accidents would finally result in a ban taking place. Already we see the reluctance of the Japanese to allow nuclear carriers to dock in Japan. Imagine the outcry from all nations when multiple accidents at sea pike up. Americans are opposed to making new reactors even though modern ones are far safer. The fact that uneducated politicians and people don't know about the safety of modern reactors isn't surprising, or understand what nuclear reactors even are really. Unless that fire made it to the engineering spaces and the radiation shielding failed (A lot of metal), and the coolant failed, the fire shouldn't spread nuclear material around. That aside, if the graphite in the core did catch fire then while the damage wouldn't be something to sniff at given that would create a radioactive plume the likes we see from old ground impact nuclear bombs, that plume would likely mostly be taking place over ocean water, and unlike a nuke that ship is either going to sink in which case the plume is going to disappear and the water is going to become the radioactive carrier agent or that fire is going to be put out and the plume will stop, either way the plume is stopped at the source. In the case of the water being the carrier agent you are looking at less than 2 years before the most dangerous agents are gone due to breakdown, then its just the long lasting agents like uranium and plutonium which really aren't terribly deadly. That aside, nuclear propulsion for ships is still the safest way to do so, with only one disaster I know of and one potential one that was likely just the subs surfacing equipment failing. And considering that the one known disaster was Russian in nature then I personally say we shouldn't factor it in because of how terribly unsafe their reactors have consistently proven to be. I think one of the biggest shames is that most people get their education on radiation and nuclear reactors from popular media and from the epa. most people don't even understand what radiation is. (a) We're not talking about modern reactors, but the first couple of generations of reactors where a number of safety features hadn't been conceived. (b) We're also talking about their use on warships where battle damage can knock out key fail-safe systems. The Devs have decided anyway - they are not implementing nuclear propulsion due to the complexity of integrating all the necessary sub-systems into the game. |
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Jun 1, 2022 12:43:30 GMT -6
You would be both correct and incorrect. The chance of the core detonating is zero, the reactor itself is a steam turbine and those have the capacity to explode given that nuclear reactors have the ability to heat up far hotter than coal or gas reactors. The coolant system is also a pressurized system and that is what was determined to cause the first explosion at Chernobyl, the coolant sublimated due to the intense heat and the expanding gas over pressurized the system and exploded it. The second explosion possibility I could think of is, as Thunderf00t hypothesized and I believe to be likely to be the second explosion reported in Chernobyl, a liquid metal explosion such as happens with sodium, or is possible with liquid aluminum in casting trays. In the case of a reactor it was likely from the metal casing around the reactor melting and hitting the coolant water. This explains much better, a great and educational watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsdLDFtbdrAThe issue with loosing coolant would cripple the ship and the reactor would turn to slag, literally. Without coolant flow a nuclear reactor will rapidly melt into essentially lava, and eat its way through almost any metal below it. The radiation would be immense, but so long as the engineering spaces were isolated and radiation protective equipment was donned most would be survivable. It probably won’t be too hard to implement nuclear reactors using mods for rtw3, much like the speed mods we have now. The trick is to associate the mod with an event system that triggers political and economic penalty events once a reactor goes Chernobyl or Fukushima and have a detailed damage system in place to represent reactor damage. If the devs won’t do it, the modding community will. Shouldn’t be too hard. Given the nature of shipborn reactors it is near impossible for a shipborn reactor to turn into a Chernobyl, you are taking about essentially detonating a steam turbine/reactor, a massive explosion in the very heart of the ship. Followed by the reactor rapidly turning into lava which then caused a second explosion on contact with the remaining coolant water. At that point even if the explosion didn't blast a hole in the bottom of the ship the lava would burn through it and create a giant hole in the ship suffering from what amounts to a bomb detonation in its heart, rendering the structure of the ship likely unsalvageable, followed by a hole being slagged through the bottom of the ship. That will rather quickly go from a meltdown to a sunk ship meaning that the meltdown and subsequent radiation rising into the air around. A Fukushima incident is the most likely because the water would be contaminated. |
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Jun 1, 2022 12:53:42 GMT -6
Americans are opposed to making new reactors even though modern ones are far safer. The fact that uneducated politicians and people don't know about the safety of modern reactors isn't surprising, or understand what nuclear reactors even are really. Unless that fire made it to the engineering spaces and the radiation shielding failed (A lot of metal), and the coolant failed, the fire shouldn't spread nuclear material around. That aside, if the graphite in the core did catch fire then while the damage wouldn't be something to sniff at given that would create a radioactive plume the likes we see from old ground impact nuclear bombs, that plume would likely mostly be taking place over ocean water, and unlike a nuke that ship is either going to sink in which case the plume is going to disappear and the water is going to become the radioactive carrier agent or that fire is going to be put out and the plume will stop, either way the plume is stopped at the source. In the case of the water being the carrier agent you are looking at less than 2 years before the most dangerous agents are gone due to breakdown, then its just the long lasting agents like uranium and plutonium which really aren't terribly deadly. That aside, nuclear propulsion for ships is still the safest way to do so, with only one disaster I know of and one potential one that was likely just the subs surfacing equipment failing. And considering that the one known disaster was Russian in nature then I personally say we shouldn't factor it in because of how terribly unsafe their reactors have consistently proven to be. I think one of the biggest shames is that most people get their education on radiation and nuclear reactors from popular media and from the epa. most people don't even understand what radiation is. (a) We're not talking about modern reactors, but the first couple of generations of reactors where a number of safety features hadn't been conceived. (b) We're also talking about their use on warships where battle damage can knock out key fail-safe systems. The Devs have decided anyway - they are not implementing nuclear propulsion due to the complexity of integrating all the necessary sub-systems into the game. I was referring to shipborn reactors, and shipborne reactors from that era, until I was talking about modern ground based reactors at the very end there. Also in my original comment I said I wasn't pushing for it to be in the game, I was responding to the other comments, mostly regarding potential battle damage and how a reactor would likely react in the situation they described. |
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Jun 1, 2022 16:04:34 GMT -6
The nuclear reactor argument is much like the Washington naval treaty. In real life, we have never had a war where naval assets using nuclear reactors were ever seriously at risk. Similarly, the Washington naval treaty curbed the building of behemoth battleships and in the game templates do not exist for them. But we have all had games where there was not a Washington naval treaty resulting in quite large BBs for the player and also for the AI if you used a BB template mod.
So in real life the world was never confronted with a maritime nuclear disaster, but we all know how carriers can burn and not sink for some time. It’s impossible for me to imagine a war between China and the USA over Taiwan because of all the maritime nuclear reactors that will get wrecked. It’s actually probably a really bad thing we haven’t had a bad nuclear reactor accident at sea. We haven’t learned the lesson of nuclear pollution from war. If it ever happens it will be devastating. And if it ever happened at sea, the public reaction would be similar to the Three Mile Island accident at the least and probably worse.
This is easily simulated in game with an event system that allows progressively higher maintenance fees for ships with nuclear reactors. The more nuclear accidents at sea, the higher those nuclear propulsion and research costs until we, as a society, determine the risks are no longer worth the costs and we find a better way to power ships at sea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adseria on Jun 1, 2022 18:43:26 GMT -6
In real life, we have never had a war where naval assets using nuclear reactors were ever seriously at risk. Sorry, but this sentence was begging for a "yet." |
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Jun 1, 2022 22:14:59 GMT -6
The nuclear reactor argument is much like the Washington naval treaty. In real life, we have never had a war where naval assets using nuclear reactors were ever seriously at risk. Similarly, the Washington naval treaty curbed the building of behemoth battleships and in the game templates do not exist for them. But we have all had games where there was not a Washington naval treaty resulting in quite large BBs for the player and also for the AI if you used a BB template mod. So in real life the world was never confronted with a maritime nuclear disaster, but we all know how carriers can burn and not sink for some time. It’s impossible for me to imagine a war between China and the USA over Taiwan because of all the maritime nuclear reactors that will get wrecked. It’s actually probably a really bad thing we haven’t had a bad nuclear reactor accident at sea. We haven’t learned the lesson of nuclear pollution from war. If it ever happens it will be devastating. And if it ever happened at sea, the public reaction would be similar to the Three Mile Island accident at the least and probably worse. This is easily simulated in game with an event system that allows progressively higher maintenance fees for ships with nuclear reactors. The more nuclear accidents at sea, the higher those nuclear propulsion and research costs until we, as a society, determine the risks are no longer worth the costs and we find a better way to power ships at sea. It really wouldn't be bad for the environment... Shockingly nuclear waste really doesn't bother the wildlife much, it actually thrives in contaminated areas because humanity avoids them. It affects our ability to utilize resources, but the wildlife doesn't really care in any way. I agree if it happened the public reaction would be similar to Three Mile Island, distrust of experts accounts and fearmongering, just like with Fukushima as well. If there was a war between China and the US over Taiwan then we may find out, however with the weapons we would be lobbing at each other its more likely that the CVN's wouldn't stay afloat after a missile hit... those are kind of devastating now days, even without the explosives'. From the pics I have seen of SM missile tests lacking explosives', just testing the kinetic impact potential of the missile it was able to cave in like 5 levels of structure when it hit the ship like mjolnir falling from the heavens. I couldnt tell entirely because the impact sight was such a mess. |
|
|
|
Post by maxnacemit on Jun 2, 2022 0:38:08 GMT -6
The nuclear reactor argument is much like the Washington naval treaty. In real life, we have never had a war where naval assets using nuclear reactors were ever seriously at risk. Similarly, the Washington naval treaty curbed the building of behemoth battleships and in the game templates do not exist for them. But we have all had games where there was not a Washington naval treaty resulting in quite large BBs for the player and also for the AI if you used a BB template mod. So in real life the world was never confronted with a maritime nuclear disaster, but we all know how carriers can burn and not sink for some time. It’s impossible for me to imagine a war between China and the USA over Taiwan because of all the maritime nuclear reactors that will get wrecked. It’s actually probably a really bad thing we haven’t had a bad nuclear reactor accident at sea. We haven’t learned the lesson of nuclear pollution from war. If it ever happens it will be devastating. And if it ever happened at sea, the public reaction would be similar to the Three Mile Island accident at the least and probably worse. This is easily simulated in game with an event system that allows progressively higher maintenance fees for ships with nuclear reactors. The more nuclear accidents at sea, the higher those nuclear propulsion and research costs until we, as a society, determine the risks are no longer worth the costs and we find a better way to power ships at sea. It really wouldn't be bad for the environment... Shockingly nuclear waste really doesn't bother the wildlife much, it actually thrives in contaminated areas because humanity avoids them. It affects our ability to utilize resources, but the wildlife doesn't really care in any way. I agree if it happened the public reaction would be similar to Three Mile Island, distrust of experts accounts and fearmongering, just like with Fukushima as well. If there was a war between China and the US over Taiwan then we may find out, however with the weapons we would be lobbing at each other its more likely that the CVN's wouldn't stay afloat after a missile hit... those are kind of devastating now days, even without the explosives'. From the pics I have seen of SM missile tests lacking explosives', just testing the kinetic impact potential of the missile it was able to cave in like 5 levels of structure when it hit the ship like mjolnir falling from the heavens. I couldnt tell entirely because the impact sight was such a mess. Well, you are underestimating the size of the ship. Moskva was 1/8th the size of a US supercarrier, took 2 missiles and sank only a day later while under tow. And these missiles had a higher explosive weight than an SM would. |
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Jun 2, 2022 12:05:11 GMT -6
It really wouldn't be bad for the environment... Shockingly nuclear waste really doesn't bother the wildlife much, it actually thrives in contaminated areas because humanity avoids them. It affects our ability to utilize resources, but the wildlife doesn't really care in any way. I agree if it happened the public reaction would be similar to Three Mile Island, distrust of experts accounts and fearmongering, just like with Fukushima as well. If there was a war between China and the US over Taiwan then we may find out, however with the weapons we would be lobbing at each other its more likely that the CVN's wouldn't stay afloat after a missile hit... those are kind of devastating now days, even without the explosives'. From the pics I have seen of SM missile tests lacking explosives', just testing the kinetic impact potential of the missile it was able to cave in like 5 levels of structure when it hit the ship like mjolnir falling from the heavens. I couldnt tell entirely because the impact sight was such a mess. Well, you are underestimating the size of the ship. Moskva was 1/8th the size of a US supercarrier, took 2 missiles and sank only a day later while under tow. And these missiles had a higher explosive weight than an SM would. Perhaps I am, these were tested on decomed FG's so you are probably right. I know those big bastards were about ten times the size of the DDG I sailed on. However you are likely missing a key detail. The Neptune's that struck the Moskva are bigger than the Harpoon ASM but the Harpoon have a bigger warhead. They are about two thirds the mass of an SM-1, SM-2, or SM-6 while the SM's have smaller warheads, but they also hit faster and harder causing more kinetic damage. They are intended as kinetic kill weapons primarily in their ASM capacity. I couldn't say for the SM-3 because the info I could find just said 1.5 tons but didn't specify metric or imperial and didn't have a payload size. And the Tomahawk ASM variant isn't finished yet. So in regard's to the warhead size of the Neptune, yes SM's are smaller, because they aren't designed to use their warheads as their primary ASM attack, they are meant to slam into them at high speeds and cave the ship in before detonating inside, something I think everyone will agree is far more devastating to another ship than a simple bigger explosion at or near the skin of the ship. Also unfortunately China has no listed ASM's on the ASM wikipedia page, so if you know where I can look up info on them, that would be nice. |
|
|
|
Post by wlbjork on Jun 2, 2022 12:09:55 GMT -6
It really wouldn't be bad for the environment... Shockingly nuclear waste really doesn't bother the wildlife much, it actually thrives in contaminated areas because humanity avoids them. It affects our ability to utilize resources, but the wildlife doesn't really care in any way. I agree if it happened the public reaction would be similar to Three Mile Island, distrust of experts accounts and fearmongering, just like with Fukushima as well. If there was a war between China and the US over Taiwan then we may find out, however with the weapons we would be lobbing at each other its more likely that the CVN's wouldn't stay afloat after a missile hit... those are kind of devastating now days, even without the explosives'. From the pics I have seen of SM missile tests lacking explosives', just testing the kinetic impact potential of the missile it was able to cave in like 5 levels of structure when it hit the ship like mjolnir falling from the heavens. I couldnt tell entirely because the impact sight was such a mess. Hmm, animals might not be bothered by it but they are certainly majorly affected, as studies in the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters show. Once the areas have recovered, the mutants will be heavily disadvantaged against 'normal' creatures of their species |
|
|
|
Post by kagami777 on Jun 2, 2022 12:32:05 GMT -6
It really wouldn't be bad for the environment... Shockingly nuclear waste really doesn't bother the wildlife much, it actually thrives in contaminated areas because humanity avoids them. It affects our ability to utilize resources, but the wildlife doesn't really care in any way. I agree if it happened the public reaction would be similar to Three Mile Island, distrust of experts accounts and fearmongering, just like with Fukushima as well. If there was a war between China and the US over Taiwan then we may find out, however with the weapons we would be lobbing at each other its more likely that the CVN's wouldn't stay afloat after a missile hit... those are kind of devastating now days, even without the explosives'. From the pics I have seen of SM missile tests lacking explosives', just testing the kinetic impact potential of the missile it was able to cave in like 5 levels of structure when it hit the ship like mjolnir falling from the heavens. I couldnt tell entirely because the impact sight was such a mess. Hmm, animals might not be bothered by it but they are certainly majorly affected, as studies in the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters show. Once the areas have recovered, the mutants will be heavily disadvantaged against 'normal' creatures of their species Can you link some of these studies? From what I've heard in spite of the slightly higher rates of cancer in animals living in those areas they are, in fact, thriving to a higher degree than others of their species living in none quarantined areas, because humans cannot go in and slaughter them. Also what do you mean by "mutants?" are you saying something like Fallout mutants or are you just referring to the higher chance of mutations in highly radiated areas? Cause I hate to burst your buble but everywhere on earth is slightly radiated or radioactive and every time you eat banana's you are getting a dose of radioactivity. |
|
indy
Full Member
Posts: 118
|
Post by indy on Jun 2, 2022 18:43:22 GMT -6
Hmm, animals might not be bothered by it but they are certainly majorly affected, as studies in the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters show. Once the areas have recovered, the mutants will be heavily disadvantaged against 'normal' creatures of their species Can you link some of these studies? From what I've heard in spite of the slightly higher rates of cancer in animals living in those areas they are, in fact, thriving to a higher degree than others of their species living in none quarantined areas, because humans cannot go in and slaughter them. Also what do you mean by "mutants?" are you saying something like Fallout mutants or are you just referring to the higher chance of mutations in highly radiated areas? Cause I hate to burst your buble but everywhere on earth is slightly radiated or radioactive and every time you eat banana's you are getting a dose of radioactivity. These arguments are completely irrelevant. In the event of a nuclear disaster, public support for nuclear propulsion will wane and steps to make it safer will cause research and maintenance to increase. Further accidents will raise tension and further escalate research costs and maintenance and will continue to rise in the wake of each successive disaster until the costs outweigh the benefits and the technology is discontinued. Whether or not some mollusk near a coral reef is mutated is only shared by certain citizens of Tokyo. |
|
