HMS Compromise
 

I'm sure its a great design and built to very high standards but...it could have been a contender.

The lack of a nuclear power plant and a catapult have severely compromised its effectiveness, why the no nuclear, as others have said probably cost. Its not as if the Royal Navy do not have any nuclear experience with their fleet of subs.
With a kettle powering the thing there would have been considerably more space available for (EDIT JP stuff, thanks HTB) and other niceties. Should WW III break out and the enemy target your oilers and other resupply ships at least you can still move and keep your defensive systems online, perhaps sailing for a friendly port, run out of oil for propulsion and thats it, your somebodies salvage.

Fuel consumption ,well I can understand its classified, I guess the turbines are to be used for a high speed dash or to assist getting the JSF airborne sailing flat out into the wind. The onboard diesels are probably for cruising and powering the ship board systems.
The QE 2 (a few yrs old now is approx 70,000 tonnes displacement) has a range of 7,500 miles at cruising speed or flat at at max speed a duration of ten days. Could these figures be in the ball park for the new carrier.

Crowsnest, well its better than nothing but its no Hawkeye, nor can the new carrier handle those useful cargo lugging aircraft the USN use.

And the lack of cats means your JSF's payload is a compromise, just how much weight can the JSF can carry using the ski ramp will compromise its range/ speed and useful weapons load.

As others have said its probably down to cost (nuclear plant and staffing) plus a bit of politics, also not every port in the world welcomes a nuclear ship. So the new carrier will be able to sail anywhere, part Royal naval asset, part royal yacht Britannia.

No doubt it will be a useful ship but I feel it could have been so much more.

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 (the French took 15 years and the CDG is still not right)

The two new UK carriers would wipe the floor with anyone other than the USN in a fleet action - so why do we need a Gerald Ford???

That's a neat trick for a ship to pull-off ;-)

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.

Thingy

I don't think you'll be finding any AVGAS on the new carrier...lots of whatever variety of JP the F35 uses though.

Mister B

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

WEBF - there has been long lead specialist training in all those skills for the last 2 years, continuing until we don't need them.

Probably the cost of technology transfer, hardware, system integration, through-life support and updates, ongoing requirement for highly specific specialist training, skilled operation & maintenance, eventual decommissioning, etc. Not sovereign and could easily end up being even more expensive than a home-grown version.

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.

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?

Ship-Submarine Recycling Program

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.......

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ford%2C_WA.png

http://www.bergall.org/reactor1.jpg

https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/39/830...422978c492.jpg

The Russians are now doing the same thing.... with funds provided by the USA, Norway, Germany and others...

http://bellona.ru/imagearchive/DETAI...E_640341_0.jpg

They used to do it this way....... :ooh::ooh:

http://handlingsplan.nrpa.no/over/pr...0II/Bilde2.jpg

And for those who want to see what they're going to do for Enterprise...

http://www.navsea.navy.mil/shipyards...Assessment.pdf

"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

RAeS backs UK aircraft carrier acquisition 08 Jul 2014 Beth Stevenson
RAeS backs UK aircraft carrier acquisition - 7/8/2014 - Flight Global

Depends what reactor you use. The scare stories are from old first generation 1950's uranium reactors.

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 :D

I understand that many pilots who experience life threatening experiences in the air land on top of stools........ :p

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

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