Future Carrier (Including Costs)
EVERY carrier that has fought in air-to-air
Edited to add: Also, not true that nuclear carriers haven't been involved in 'air-to-air' engagements. Gulf of Sidra (1981), Desert Storm (1991), not to mention the air operations over the Balkans and Iraq throughout the 90s, etc.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WEBF,
Putting in quotes without a date attached is pretty much a waste of time as it has been clear for some time that the RN has embraced the need to train for CVF for some time. To date there have been many personnel from pilots to deck crew to bridge staff who have spent time in the USN as part of their preparation to join QE.
Putting in quotes without a date attached is pretty much a waste of time as it has been clear for some time that the RN has embraced the need to train for CVF for some time. To date there have been many personnel from pilots to deck crew to bridge staff who have spent time in the USN as part of their preparation to join QE.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amazingly enough EVERY carrier that has fought in air-to-air and ship -to ship action used oil
there is no reason for N Power if the rest of the battle group still use oil
We don't have a large commercial Nplant available and it would take years to develope one
there is no reason for N Power if the rest of the battle group still use oil
We don't have a large commercial Nplant available and it would take years to develope one
2. Illogical argument, there would be more oil for the carrier's 'entourage' if the carrier doesn't need it.
3. Tough to believe that the reactor design used in our submarine fleet could not be modified. The Americans seem to be more than happy to share similar reactor designs between surface and sub-surface types.
The limiting factor tends to be F44/JP5 usage rate. CVN lets you have bigger bunkers for a given size of ship, but a big CVN flying an intensive airplan uses F44 at a massive rate.
That tends to mean UNREP from an MSC tanker every 4-5 days and they don't p1ss about - it's not unusual to have 6 hoses chucking JP5 across at 500 cubes an hour each.
The PWR2 reactor we currently use has a relatively low power output and one of its limiting factors is core life. If you put something like that in a CVN you'd need a number of reactors to get enough power and potentially core life, given the significantly different power loading and operational profiles on a CVN compared to a submarine.
I'm no nuclear engineer, but you also get into safety, shielding and heat transfer issues on a ship that you don't necessarily get on a boat. If you look at the USN A4W powering their current CVN it's a very different beast from the S6G and S8G that power their boats.
That tends to mean UNREP from an MSC tanker every 4-5 days and they don't p1ss about - it's not unusual to have 6 hoses chucking JP5 across at 500 cubes an hour each.
The PWR2 reactor we currently use has a relatively low power output and one of its limiting factors is core life. If you put something like that in a CVN you'd need a number of reactors to get enough power and potentially core life, given the significantly different power loading and operational profiles on a CVN compared to a submarine.
I'm no nuclear engineer, but you also get into safety, shielding and heat transfer issues on a ship that you don't necessarily get on a boat. If you look at the USN A4W powering their current CVN it's a very different beast from the S6G and S8G that power their boats.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tough to believe that the reactor design used in our submarine fleet could not be modified. The Americans seem to be more than happy to share similar reactor designs between surface and sub-surface types.
Originally Posted by 500N
Why would you design your own and not go to the US and ask for one of theirs which is designed for ships, made, works and ready ?
Irrespective of the home-porting practicalities of a CVN's size (100 ktons vs 65 ktons) and nuclear nature, the UK could have gone the whole hog and ordered a couple of Gerald Fords with two reactors, EMALS and traps at around $13 bn each but HMG still wouldn't be able to afford them. Then there are a CVN's restrictions regarding use, berthing in foreign ports and training, sustaining and paying a crew four times as big to consider.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: essex
Age: 76
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry about the slight thread drift but just a thought if you have a CVN or 2 what happens to the reactors in the event of severe battle damage? Are rescue operations curtailed because of the risk of radiation exposure and what abou final disposal do we just let them sink and pollute a large area of ocean or what, I know it's a situation that we all hope and pray will never arise but what if?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
and what about final disposal do we just let them sink and pollute a large area of ocean or what
Before SRP can begin, the ship or submarine must have her nuclear fuel removed..... Spent nuclear fuel is shipped by rail to the Naval Reactor Facility in the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), located 42 miles (67 km) northwest of Idaho Falls, Idaho, where it is stored in special canisters.
At PSNS the SRP proper begins. A submarine is cut into three or four pieces: the aft section, the reactor compartment, the missile compartment if one exists, and the forward section. Missile compartments are dismantled according to the provisions of the Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty. Reactor compartments are sealed at both ends and shipped by barge and multiple-wheel high-capacity trailers to the Department of Energy's Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington state, where they are currently in open dry storage and slated to be eventually buried. The burial trenches have been evaluated to be secure for at least 600 years before the first pinhole penetration of some lead containment areas of the reactor compartment packages occurs, and several thousand years before leakage becomes possible.......
By the end of 2005, 195 nuclear submarines had been ordered or built in the US ..... The last of the regular Sturgeon attack boats, L. Mendel Rivers, was decommissioned in 2001, and Parche, a highly modified Sturgeon, was decommissioned in 2004. The last of the initial "41 for Freedom" Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) submarines, Kamehameha, was decommissioned in 2002. Decommissioning of the Los Angeles boats began in 1995 with Baton Rouge. Additionally, a handful of nuclear-powered cruisers have entered the program, and their dismantling is ongoing. The first aircraft carrier due for decommissioning that would enter the SRP is planned to be Enterprise, intended for withdrawal in 2013.......
The Russians are now doing the same thing.... with funds provided by the USA, Norway, Germany and others...
They used to do it this way.......
Last edited by ORAC; 8th Jul 2014 at 09:40.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"1. So what?
2. Illogical argument, there would be more oil for the carrier's 'entourage' if the carrier doesn't need it.
3. Tough to believe that the reactor design used in our submarine fleet could not be modified. The Americans seem to be more than happy to share similar reactor designs between surface and sub-surface types."
Well Willard I was pointing out:-
1. you don't NEED N-powered carriers to fight a war
2. If any of the ships in the Group need fuel then the supply chain has to be protected -
3. You can't be serious - given the cost overruns already on the conventional boats you want to add a complete design, development and
installation of a new nuclear plant - warships + npower = VAST cost overruns and delays
2. Illogical argument, there would be more oil for the carrier's 'entourage' if the carrier doesn't need it.
3. Tough to believe that the reactor design used in our submarine fleet could not be modified. The Americans seem to be more than happy to share similar reactor designs between surface and sub-surface types."
Well Willard I was pointing out:-
1. you don't NEED N-powered carriers to fight a war
2. If any of the ships in the Group need fuel then the supply chain has to be protected -
3. You can't be serious - given the cost overruns already on the conventional boats you want to add a complete design, development and
installation of a new nuclear plant - warships + npower = VAST cost overruns and delays
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
RAeS backs UK aircraft carrier acquisition 08 Jul 2014 Beth Stevenson
RAeS backs UK aircraft carrier acquisition - 7/8/2014 - Flight Global
"...[the RAeS paper] adds that US support for the Queen Elizabeth-class acquisition “becomes clear” when it is considered that the US Navy hopes a UK carrier task group will provide sufficient capability to replace one of its 11 task groups on station.
“Even if it is one task group once a year, this has significant appeal to the US and is an, albeit subtle, lever for the UK with its major ally,” the paper adds...."
“Even if it is one task group once a year, this has significant appeal to the US and is an, albeit subtle, lever for the UK with its major ally,” the paper adds...."
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: raf
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and what about final disposal do we just let them sink and pollute a large area of ocean or what
Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote... There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, states Moir and Teller, eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage; "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium." The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off... unquote.
relating to the 'carrier aviation' skills issue - perhaps we should get this bloke onboard as QFI? BBC News - Pilot lands faulty fighter jet on a stool at sea ?
Top skills
Top skills
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere Warm
Age: 71
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smaller Might Be Better?
An interesting story talking about why the US Navy should adopt a Royal Navy sized aircraft carrier.
Why The US Navy Should Build Smaller Aircraft Carriers
TB
Why The US Navy Should Build Smaller Aircraft Carriers
TB
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very interesting - a bit amazed that they only have 3-4 carriers out at any one time and that its a 5 year operation to refuel and upgrade...............
As they said the USN was operating QE sized carriers in the front line as late as 1990 i.e right to the end of the Cold War
As they said the USN was operating QE sized carriers in the front line as late as 1990 i.e right to the end of the Cold War
The only problem with it is that it is written from the perspective of one who hasn't gripped the difference between how the USN and RN recruit and man ships.
To be able to realise the scale of manpower savings between QE and a US CVN you'd have to completely change their recruitment and training policy, not to mention their approach to ship operation and their accommodation standards.
One other point is that QE can get away with fewer people in the CAG (TAG if you're of a PC persuasion) because the deck is bigger than it would have to be just to cram aircraft in - the same applies to Ford. So "smaller" ship can actually mean more bodies if you want a comparable sortie rate.
The 3.5 from 11 actually means 3.5 fully available, deployed and worked up. It doesn't mean the other 7.5 are in bits, rather that they're in the US-based part of their operating cycle, letting the CAG and crew stand down and do the leave thing, prior to entering another training and work-up cycle.
To be able to realise the scale of manpower savings between QE and a US CVN you'd have to completely change their recruitment and training policy, not to mention their approach to ship operation and their accommodation standards.
One other point is that QE can get away with fewer people in the CAG (TAG if you're of a PC persuasion) because the deck is bigger than it would have to be just to cram aircraft in - the same applies to Ford. So "smaller" ship can actually mean more bodies if you want a comparable sortie rate.
The 3.5 from 11 actually means 3.5 fully available, deployed and worked up. It doesn't mean the other 7.5 are in bits, rather that they're in the US-based part of their operating cycle, letting the CAG and crew stand down and do the leave thing, prior to entering another training and work-up cycle.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: crewe
Age: 77
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
