Originally Posted by
WE Branch Fanatic
Nuclear power was briefly considered for CVF, but fortunately rejected. I say fortunate in light of the problems France and the US have with nuclear carriers. Nuclear power is very expensive, demands a lot of manpower, and makes refits very long as you basically open up the ship to replace the reactors. Submarines have had the same problems, but the latest reactor cores used in the Astute boats are designed to last the boat's life.
Even the Americans are finding that refitting and refueling nuclear carriers causes availability issues.
Nuclear carriers are refueled once in their 50 year service life. This is done during an RCOH (Refueling Complex Overhaul) at the 25 year point in a carrier's life. These are scheduled many years in advance so have no affect on availability. Nuclear submarines are also refueled once in their service life, which is shorter than a carrier's service life. The latest submarine reactors are good for the entire life of the sub.
As for operating cost of nuclear vessels, the biggest cost hurdle for a nuclear powered ship is that very few ships share the needed nuclear infrastructure. With the military having created a nuclear infrastructure for marine powerplants, commercial nuclear vessels are again being studied and designed, but not yet built. The biggest remaining hurdle is insurance. Lloyds for example won't insure a commercial nuclear vessel. The 1962 Brussels Convention on liability of nuclear ship operators was never ratified. The governments self-insure their military nuclear vessels.