Carriers

Discussion in 'The Fleet' started by janner, Aug 11, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. janner

    janner War Hero Book Reviewer

    Whilst I appreciate that there are problems in retaining trained nuclear people and the start up costs would be greater, would it not make sense for the Carriers to be Nuclear powered.

    With the oncoming shortage of fossil fuels and the rising prices of the same would not the intial start up costs soon be overtaken by the savings on conventional fuels?
     
  2. :thumright:
    Good Question . Would be like having the real deal as in the USSN. Also my observation with no CAT. What aircraft will they be able to use for AEW. Operation? ps AEW / Air early warning .CAT /catapult assisted take off :salut: :thumright:
     
  3. I believe the main objection to nuclear propulsion for CVF was the enormous cost this would have added to an already expensive development and building programme, probably putting it well beyond serious consideration. According to some sources, the Dieso consumed will almost pale into insignificance when compared with the AVCAT required for the aircraft but I'm sure there are people better qualified to comment on this than me.

    Time for the RN to acquire its own oil well? It used to have its own coal mines.
     
  4. not only would it cost more to build, but it would require a much larger, specialised crew to maintain and monitor the reactor, and then you have to factor in disposal costs and end of life, so nuclear would be much more expensive IMO

    And I'm not sure about a MOD oil field, but I could certainly see a few big MOD farms for Biofuel
     
  5. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    I seem to have picked up that the reason the US carriers were originally designed to be the size they are was to accommodate the original nuclear power plant.
     
  6. There's talk of the next generation AEW aircraft being based on the V-22 Osprey. Nothing anything like concrete yet, but would make sense.
     
  7. I think we took one look at the problems the French had upscaling a nuclear power system to a carrier and decided that it really wasn't worth the ballache.
     
  8. IIRC the logic went something like could we ever fit a powerful enough plant in a 40000 tonner. Conceivably. Do we have a big enough plant either in design or production (only PWR2 at the time)? No. Right, move on then.

    To be fair - it was probably the right decision when you looked at the facts at the time. The US were decommissioning all their DDGN/CGN and we were busy pursuing Core H and the nirvana of no in-service refuellings and the STOVL Strike Fighter as it was then wouldn't need steam. In hindsight, given the effort now being put into re-establishing a reactor design capability under DIS, the way the ship grew in size, the potential choice of Dave B and the way F76 costs are going it doesn't stack up as well. You take your decisions and you live by them......
     
  9. time to re invent the Gannet? It could do a free take from aircraft carriers :w00t: :thumright:
     
  10. If a submarine reactor can push a boat at X knots dived, can it not push a surface ship at Y knots with some modification? As for nuclear trained personnel, with the dilution of the submarine fleet to the BNs and the 4 (or less perhaps) ASTUTES, surely there is employment for the clankies of the decommissioned S and T boats ?
     

Share This Page