British Aircraft Carriers

Kenazo

Lifer
Sep 15, 2000
10,429
1
81
Anyone know why the british don't use nuclear power for their aircraft carriers? the ark royal is apparently fitted with "4 Olympus gas turbine engines (like Concorde?s) propel the ship, which give a maximum speed in excess of 30 knots". Seems a little old tech to me.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Kenazo
Anyone know why the british don't use nuclear power for their aircraft carriers? the ark royal is apparently fitted with "4 Olympus gas turbine engines (like Concorde?s) propel the ship, which give a maximum speed in excess of 30 knots". Seems a little old tech to me.

Their aircraft carriers are much, much smaller than ours. Plus, its probably a "enviro-hippie" mandated design... like burning all that gas is good for the enviroment
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,369
8,492
126
this would be called an escort carrier if it was a US ship.

ark royal is 683 feet long, 117 foot beam and 20,000 tonnes (metric? imperial? who knows?)

the abraham lincoln is 1092 feet long, 257 foot beam, and 97000 tons displacement
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Don't British carriers mainly carry helicoptors and Harrier jump jets?
 

wirelessenabled

Platinum Member
Feb 5, 2001
2,190
41
91
Gas turbines have many advantages and few drawbacks.

Advantages:
1. Cheap and fast to build and repair.
2. No need for the extremely highly trained crew that a reactor needs.
3. Safe, no radioactivity.
4. Can go from off and tied to the pier, to full speed in a matter of minutes. Nukes take many hours.
5. Much quicker throttle response than steam-powered vessels.
6. Compact takes up way less space on ship than reactor and steam equipment.

Disadvantages:
1. Use lots of fuel necessitating a big supply train and using space on ship to store.
 

NightTrain

Platinum Member
Apr 1, 2001
2,150
0
76
Originally posted by: wirelessenabled
Gas turbines have many advantages and few drawbacks.

6. Compact takes up way less space on ship than reactor and steam equipment.

Is this really true? I would think the reactor would be pretty small.

Disadvantages:
1. Use lots of fuel necessitating a big supply train and using space on ship to store.

This just might trump most of it not all of the advantages.
 

justint

Banned
Dec 6, 1999
1,429
0
0
Thier is a good reason the US navy does not have any nuclear powered surface ships any more beyond the aircraft carriers and I think 1 submarine tender. Nuclear power is very very very expensive compared to conventional steam and gas turbine powerered vessels. We found that out when we were having trouble manning all those nuclear cruisers and assorted other wastes of resources.

This is mainly due to personnel training and retention costs. Nuclear power trained officers and enlisted (nukes as we call them)have to attend nuclear power school in Charleston SC for 6 months (VERY VERY rigorous crash course in nuclear physics and reactor operations) and then move on to 6 months of prototype. Afterwards they need to spend at least a year to get thier engineers license (for officers). This is why nuke personnel get large bonuses and pay differentials. It is very hard to get people qualified for the program, the drop out/failure rate is high/ and retaining these people is also difficult as they can move on to much better paid civillian jobs.

GB could not afford the costs of nuclear power when conventional is far cheaper. Only France is currently pursuing a nuclear powered surface ship.
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
14
81
fobot.com
Originally posted by: Queasy
Don't British carriers mainly carry helicoptors and Harrier jump jets?

yes, which is another reason for their smaller size

i expect the cost of the nuke plant is also part of it, gas turbines are much cheaper
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
14
81
fobot.com
Originally posted by: justint
Thier is a good reason the US navy does not have any nuclear powered surface ships any more beyond the aircraft carriers and I think 1 submarine tender.

the only surface ships that are nuclear are the carriers, the last nuke cruiser was decommissioned about 5-10 years ago (maybe even 15 years ago)

Insidious used to serve on the Truxton , i believe, which i think was the last nuclear powered cruiser, i will invite him over to this thread (he mostly hangs in the DC forum)
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
14
81
fobot.com
Originally posted by: justint
... retaining these people is also difficult as they can move on to much better paid civillian jobs.

raises hand

i got out just before my ten year point

i didn't go into civilian nuclear power, but i am doing ok

i was on a submarine though, no surface ship for me
 

FoBoT

No Lifer
Apr 30, 2001
63,084
14
81
fobot.com
Originally posted by: NightTrain
Is this really true? I would think the reactor would be pretty small.

gas turbine propulsion systems can be made in many sizes , but on a size/thrust basis, gas turbines beat nuclear power.

the reactor itself isn't necessarily large (especially the newest ones), but the steam plant, steam generators (heat exchangers) and condensers and all the piping take up a fair amount of room

also, the reactor has to be located inside a shielded room (called the reactor compartment) to keep the radiation from reaching the crew. this takes up considerable space and adds weight and cost
 

Ynog

Golden Member
Oct 9, 2002
1,782
1
0
Originally posted by: justint
Thier is a good reason the US navy does not have any nuclear powered surface ships any more beyond the aircraft carriers and I think 1 submarine tender.

Actually much of our sub fleet is nuclear powered.
Info on US Submarines

One simple reason is that you don't want to have to make room when building one to store fuel, not to mention when
they are out to see for 6+ months they don't want them to have to stop at a port just to gas up. Especially if you
were in enemy waters.

EDIT: whoops early post.

Carrier sizes make it a good choice for nuclear power. But the navy is going smaller when it comes to the
rest of the ships out in the fleet. You really don't need a nuclear reactor on a destroyer or a cruiser.
 

justint

Banned
Dec 6, 1999
1,429
0
0
Originally posted by: Ynog
Originally posted by: justint
Thier is a good reason the US navy does not have any nuclear powered surface ships any more beyond the aircraft carriers and I think 1 submarine tender.

Actually much of our sub fleet is nuclear powered.
Info on US Submarines

One simple reason is that you don't want to have to make room when building one to store fuel, not to mention when
they are out to see for 6+ months they don't want them to have to stop at a port just to gas up. Especially if you
were in enemy waters.

EDIT: whoops early post.

Carrier sizes make it a good choice for nuclear power. But the navy is going smaller when it comes to the
rest of the ships out in the fleet. You really don't need a nuclear reactor on a destroyer or a cruiser.


I said Surface Ships
 

alnitak

Member
Jan 30, 2003
58
0
0
The current British carriers were designed & built in the 60's and 70's. And you don't want to know what the British economy was like then. We probably couldn't afford it.

I think the next pair aren't either. Sigh.
 

Insidious

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2001
7,649
0
0
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: justint
Thier is a good reason the US navy does not have any nuclear powered surface ships any more beyond the aircraft carriers and I think 1 submarine tender.

the only surface ships that are nuclear are the carriers, the last nuke cruiser was decommissioned about 5-10 years ago (maybe even 15 years ago)

Insidious used to serve on the Truxton , i believe, which i think was the last nuclear powered cruiser, i will invite him over to this thread (he mostly hangs in the DC forum)


Yepperz, I was a Rx Operator on the Truxtun. I can't really say how many non-carrier type nukes are still steaming. (Tommy T. is decommissioned now).

I think it was mostly a matter of de-prioritizing the military with the end of the cold war and idiot democrats pretending they were leading a company, rather than a country. (do I sound bitter?)

With the subs, the long legs of a nuclear propulsion system are really not a luxuary. But for the skimmers, I think it was an easy place to cut costs. For one thing, it is kind of silly for a cruiser to have those legs with the rest of the battle group still relying upon GT propulsion systems.

In the case of carriers the sheer size of the vessel, the electrical requirements (a small city) and the steam required for the catapults makes nuclear power necessary.

edit: as a side note, the Tommy T. could have easily, single-handedly put 'a certain country' into the stone age without the loss of a single Coalition life..... /me sighs.... God I hate the high ground!
 

Kenazo

Lifer
Sep 15, 2000
10,429
1
81
There will also be new Type 45 Destroyers to replace the Type 42 Class. They will come into service in 2007. The combined value of the initial contracts placed for the aircraft carriers and Type 45 Destroyers is around $165 million.
a quote from here

Don't B-2's cost more than that? For the price of one b-2 Canada could by a navy.
 

Loralon

Member
Oct 10, 1999
132
0
0
Don't B-2's cost more than that? For the price of one b-2 Canada could by a navy.

Just to clarify, the $165 million is for the initial design work for the new carrier and destroyer classes and not actually the unit cost(s) for those vessels. You can think of this as a downpayment. The unit cost for just one of those new carriers should be in the several billion range.
 

Mookow

Lifer
Apr 24, 2001
10,162
0
0
Originally posted by: Loralon
Don't B-2's cost more than that? For the price of one b-2 Canada could by a navy.

Just to clarify, the $165 million is for the initial design work for the new carrier and destroyer classes and not actually the unit cost(s) for those vessels. You can think of this as a downpayment. The unit cost for just one of those new carriers should be in the several billion range.

K, that had me confused... and aamused, because if the carrier only cost 165 million... well, thats a small carrier
 

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
I think the last non-carrier nuclear surface ship in the USN was the USS Virginia. I don't recall when it was decomissioned, but it was probably within the last ten years. Jane's probably has the data.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
I think the last non-carrier nuclear surface ship in the USN was the USS Virginia. I don't recall when it was decomissioned, but it was probably within the last ten years. Jane's probably has the data.

Close. USS Arkansas
 

Marshallj

Platinum Member
Mar 26, 2003
2,326
0
76
Originally posted by: Kenazo
There will also be new Type 45 Destroyers to replace the Type 42 Class. They will come into service in 2007. The combined value of the initial contracts placed for the aircraft carriers and Type 45 Destroyers is around $165 million.
a quote from here

Don't B-2's cost more than that? For the price of one b-2 Canada could by a navy.


The B-2's cost is not as much as the press leads you to believe.


When they say a B-2 costs "$2 billion", the plane itself does not cost nearly $2 Billion. What they are doing is playing with numbers. They are dividing the program cost by the number of aircraft produced.

For instance, let's say you spend $50 billion on research and development for a new aircraft. Much of that $50 billion is spent before the first aircraft rolls off the assembly line. That R&D expense will be amortized over the length of the program. Say the original order is for 1,000 aircraft and each aircraft costs $100 million to produce for parts and labor. To figure the unit cost, you divide the cost of development by the number of aircraft produced, and add that to the cost of making the jet. So $50 billion divided by 1,000 units is $50 million R&D cost per unit. So your $100 million jet now is considered a "$150 million aircraft". That wouldn't seem too bad.

But let's say that they decided to trim the order in half, to 500 planes. Your $100 million airframe cost stays the same, but the $50 billion R&D cost is only divided among 500 aircraft. That's now a $100 million R&D expense added to the cost of each aircraft instead of $50 million. So your unit cost balloons up to $200 million per jet.

Now let's say the politicians start throwing that number around a bit and further scare the purchasers. So let's say that now they only want 250 jets instead of the original 1,000. Now the R&D cost will be $200 million per jet. That makes the unit cost $300 million for each aircraft.

So now they're not sure that they want this aircraft, whose unit price is now twice what it was supposed to be. So they purchase a minimal amount of aircraft, say 50 of them. Now the R&D cost per unit is $1 billion per jet. So when the news picks up on it, they quote it as being a "$1.1 billion aircraft". But in reality the aircraft doesn't cost that much, it's still $100 million. The money spent on R&D will never be recovered, even if they ended up not building any planes at all.

As it applies to the B-2, originally the order was for 132 aircraft, but with the demise of the Soviet Union the program was cut to 20 bombers plus 1 test aircraft, which was later converted to operational status. The program cost about $20 billion for the purchase of the 21 aircraft, and about $25 billion for the R&D cost. That comes out to about $950 million for the aircraft itself, and about $1.2 billion for development, which makes the media claim the B-2 costs "over $2 billion a plane".
 

Kenazo

Lifer
Sep 15, 2000
10,429
1
81
ouch. that's a pretty big hit. why not cut the B-52 fleet down and replace them w/ B-2's? Those b-52's are getting pretty old, the maintenance must be getting pretty costly on those 40 year old airframes.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |