oiled fueled carriers ? I was a submariner about 70 years ago and know little carriers though always like the images . BUT why did Britain build oil c

Tui Bird

Badgeman
Can anybody give me their view as to why the RN built Oil Fuel super carriers? I was in RN submarines 70 years ago and even then fuel was serious business . I Understand that to double the speed of a ship requires 8 times the power and therefore fuel . At 30 knots you meet a brick wall and power needed goes up even more if a speed over about 31 knots is required . The US has built oil fuel super carrier since the KITTY HAWK was built and that was a political decision about using nuclear power . Well the KITTY HAWK was retired and after a lot of negotiation the Japanese Government reluctantly agreed to allow one USN Nuclear carrier to be permanently based in Japan , but only at the base Yukusuku . Then I came across this on the web and as this ---l https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/po...-tour-through-east-asia-defence-minister-says ------ Now I live in NZ and have for a long time and am concerned to see this small country that has served Britain so well in the best getting their one of two frigates involved in this doubtful business in the China Sea . However my current question really is >>>> surely Britain could have built nuclear reactors for these huge ships , but decided to use oil fuel that eliminates great( politic-nuclear-problems in the Pacific etc despite huge problems in re-fueling especially in the wide |Pacific ,with smaller escorts that also have to be oil fueled.

Now we are told these wildly expensive ships will be be sent to the China Sea to give a warning to the Chinese , and will obviously using any of the bases in Japan as they not nuclear . They will also be able to go into various ports in the Pacific (including NZ ) that ban nuclear armed and propelled ships . Now if this is the reason for using oil fuel , they must have been planning this wildly expensive adventure quite some years ago , but we didn't see anything in the papers here . Anybody got a better reason for these white elephants if cause a war with the hardy Chinese stocked with long range missiles, and Russia just round the corner as were . This surely is US policy , not the Britain that had an Empire when I was a young boy and the certainly ruled the waves --but today ??? Anyway a few sensible thoughts on the above would be much appreciated by me , especially with this sort of suspicious thinking in my ancient mind >>>https://tinyurl.com/ycd8om3f
 

Sumo

War Hero
Not sure why, but a mandatory requirement was non nuclear, hence we didn't even consider it. To ease the power curve diesels for lower speeds and gas turbines for the big push.
 

Ballistic

War Hero
From Wikipedia:

Nuclear propulsion was rejected due to its high cost in favour of Integrated Electric Propulsion consisting of two Rolls-Royce Marine Trent MT30 36 MW (48,000 hp) gas turbine generator units and four Wärtsilä diesel generator sets (two 9 MW or 12,000 hp and two 11 MW or 15,000 hp).[49] The Trents and diesels are the largest ever supplied to the Royal Navy, and together they feed the low-voltage electrical systems as well as four GE Power Conversion's 20 MW electric propulsion motors that drive the twin fixed-pitch propellers.

More here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth-class_aircraft_carrier

I know it's only wiki but it gives an overall feel for the reasons.
I'm sure if the citations are followed there'll be much more detail but I'll leave that up to you @Tui Bird :)
 

redmonkey

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Also the cost of going nuclear.
You will require nuclear watchkeepers all the time and they aren't cheap to train or even retain in the RN.
 

KATWEEZIL

Lantern Swinger
Maybe another reason.. All Submariners get a nuclear allowance I believe. Then it could be argued that Carrier crews get the same?
 

Tui Bird

Badgeman
I accept conventional power plants in ships are cheaper etc , but on that basis these carriers( indeed all warships ) are a constant burden on the taxpayer --from the day the were approved to the day the scrap takes them . NO -- my point is tactical -- these "super carriers " must require regular refueling and will need large vulnerable Fleet Tankers at all time . The original escort cruisers for the USN nuclear cruisers were also nuclear , but eventually replaced by conventionally power plants -- admittedly the Gas Turbine / diesel generator was new , but still required fueling at sea . Its's all about tactics and if the all the modern kit is not fitted then they rapidly devalue in naval warfare terms . Four---- more modest carriers might well have been a better bet --- a Russian anti - carrier can really only stalk one carrier at once -- and they have been building and practicing since my time in boats in the 1950 s --- crude at first having surface to get direction and fire ---come a long way since then . Hard to understand the manning policy with have the plane US marine flown by by Marine pilots --who is going to call the shots .--all a mystery -- except they will able to enter all Japanese ports. Finally in my view there has one major battle involving large battle fleets Jutland , and involving large modern battle ships , with carrier aircraft support -- the destruction of the German modern heavy ships , at the same time the one major war involving carrier and specialised planes took place in the Pacific --in particular Midway . The future will about missiles and long range at that --one hit and half the capital ships of the RN will gone together with aircraft . Lets hope we don't find out how a future war at sea will turn out ? A look at the map shows RussIa is within range of the China sea ?? I have no idea if Russia will become involved --but would rather not find out . One last point --USN carriers have been been used to deliver missiles to "terrorists" such as Iraq without any serious engagement with the enemy , same with US and UK SSN missiles .China may prove to a tougher nut to crack and these two .only , giant carriers easy to disable .I have no idea what the USN will do if the UK gets in a firing war with China in the confines of the South China sea -- and I would have rather the UK have stayed at home to defend the British Isles . Not fight what are effectively are US wars , quaintly involving the old enemy Japan ! The nearest long range nuclear missile target for China if it finds itself hard pressed at sea by the USN_UK . China is not Iran . My apologies for raving on , but when one has seen one's home city burn in the UK with rail way borne AA shrapnel hitting the house roof as you run for the Anderson shelter and your older relatives come home in tatters from Dunkirk , you tend take war more seriously , With the rations getting really short i 1943 With Churchill telling the public on the radio that invasion of Russia would over in 2 months and quickly Hitler would turn again to invasion of Britain ( record available at BBC) . He was wrong--- luckily this time in our favour . The Red Army was much better than anybody thought --maybe China is ??
 

WreckerL

War Hero
Super Moderator
Maybe another reason.. All Submariners get a nuclear allowance I believe. Then it could be argued that Carrier crews get the same?
As Sumo has said, only Cat B and Cat A2 watchkeepers get nuclear pay, I still got it after I went wrecker and stopped watchkeeping back aft, very nice little bonus every day :)
 

Sumo

War Hero
As Sumo has said, only Cat B and Cat A2 watchkeepers get nuclear pay, I still got it after I went wrecker and stopped watchkeeping back aft, very nice little bonus every day :)
extra knowledge pay, above your extra knowledge SM pay, nice little earner.
 

Polto

War Hero
I think it's partly that nuclear plant brings with it a whole host of problems, hoops to jump through and problematic end of life disposal. I'm sure the powers that be will have weighed up many factors including the opportunity of parking these ships in foreign ports. Nuclear power is fraught with so many issues - including making it a potential target for green/anti-nuclear pressure groups. Yes, I get it that oil burning isn't particularly green but its a less sensitive issue than parking a nuclear reactor off someone's coastline whilst more snorkers are ferried onboard.
 
Last edited:

WreckerL

War Hero
Super Moderator
Is Pompey still nuclear-free?

If so, wouldn't the base port be an issue?

Happy to be educated if I've got the wrong idea...
I've done Pompey Navy days a couple of times on SSN'S. It's whats known as a Z berth which means nuclear powered vessels can go alongside but they don't have the facilities for nuclear work, unlike Guzz, Gib, Faslavatory etc that are X berths.
 
Top