British Aircraft Carriers

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
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.

B-52's are reliable workhorses. When they were first made, the design was supposed to be in the service for a few years until a more advanced bomber could be built. Current plans call for the B-52 to be in service until 2040, which will give it a program life of over 85 years. Now that's a successful design...

 

[Kenazo]

B-52's are reliable workhorses. When they were first made, the design was supposed to be in the service for a few years until a more advanced bomber could be built. Current plans call for the B-52 to be in service until 2040, which will give it a program life of over 85 years. Now that's a successful design...

Now that's a lack of a reason to have a better bomber. If the same political situation existed now as in the 50's and 60's we would be flying hundreds of B-2's and have a new bomber already in the works.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Kenazo


Now that's a lack of a reason to have a better bomber. If the same political situation existed now as in the 50's and 60's we would be flying hundreds of B-2's and have a new bomber already in the works.

Don't forget that we also have the B-1 bomber.

For carrying heavy loads over lightly defended enemy territory like Baghdad, the B-52 suits the job fine. It's like a dump truck, old, weathered, and time proven.

The B-2 was made for a special purpose, infiltrating deep into heavily defended areas like the old Soviet Union, when a conventional bomber probably wouldn't make it to its target.

But I agree that it would be nice to have something more modern.

 

[Kenazo]

Now that's a successful design...

I was merely commenting that it was a decent design, but there was not much need for anything more, thus why these will be in service till 2040.

Have you seen those B-1's? I was in South Dakota and toured the airforce base where they're based. Wow! they are quite something. That's a huge airplane to have cruising around at mach 1.5 or something. The interesting thing is that the autopilots in those planes are capable of flying the entire mission by themselves (if i remember correctly. It's been about 10 years since I was there)... but anyway, we're getting a little off topic from the original "British Aircraft Carriers" topic.

 

[wirelessenabled]

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.
q]
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Submarines have nuclear power for one simple reason. Reactors make power without using oxygen. A nuclear powered sub has full power available to it all the time, on the surface or in a deep dive. Any fossil fuel power plant needs oxygen to run and thus diesel subs need to run on severely limited battery power when submerged. Makes for a vast difference in capabilities.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: Kenazo


Now that's a lack of a reason to have a better bomber. If the same political situation existed now as in the 50's and 60's we would be flying hundreds of B-2's and have a new bomber already in the works.

Don't forget that we also have the B-1 bomber.

For carrying heavy loads over lightly defended enemy territory like Baghdad, the B-52 suits the job fine. It's like a dump truck, old, weathered, and time proven.

The B-2 was made for a special purpose, infiltrating deep into heavily defended areas like the old Soviet Union, when a conventional bomber probably wouldn't make it to its target.

But I agree that it would be nice to have something more modern.

I think they should make another production run of b-2s. Make 1/2 the run without all the high tech stealth stuff and make the other 1/2 stealth

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

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.
q]
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Submarines have nuclear power for one simple reason. Reactors make power without using oxygen. A nuclear powered sub has full power available to it all the time, on the surface or in a deep dive. Any fossil fuel power plant needs oxygen to run and thus diesel subs need to run on severely limited battery power when submerged. Makes for a vast difference in capabilities.

True enough. The limiting factor for nuke subs has always been food and crew fatigue.

There is some interesting work being done on subs equipped with Stirling diesels.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: charrison


I think they should make another production run of b-2s. Make 1/2 the run without all the high tech stealth stuff and make the other 1/2 stealth

Since all the R&D work is already done on them, it would probably be cheaper to just produce them as they currently are instead of investing more money to research how to make a "cheaper" version.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Marshallj

Originally posted by: charrison


I think they should make another production run of b-2s. Make 1/2 the run without all the high tech stealth stuff and make the other 1/2 stealth

Since all the R&D work is already done on them, it would probably be cheaper to just produce them as they currently are instead of investing more money to research how to make a "cheaper" version.

As far as production goes, I would agree, but the constant maintance of the skin gets expensive in the long run.

 

[Feldenak]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
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.

IIRC the B-52 is, by treaty, our only "strategic" bomber and by strategic, I mean nuclear platforms. The reason for it being that way is for arms reduction treaties. Which would you rather have a RIF of, your shiny, new bombers or the old workhorse that's older than the people flying it? It's been a long time since my "History of American Airpower" class, but I'm fairly certain of my statements.

 

[Marshallj]

Originally posted by: Feldenak

Originally posted by: Kenazo
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.

IIRC the B-52 is, by treaty, our only "strategic" bomber and by strategic, I mean nuclear platforms.

It's our primary strategic nuclear bomber, but it's not our only one. The B-2 is also nuclear capable. The B-1 has been converted to subsonic conventional duty.

 

[RossGr]

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.

The Kitty Hawk and the Constellation are currently on station in the Red Sea, both along with the Kennedy are conventionally powered. So nuclear power is not NECESSARY.

Since even the nuclear ships must take on aviation fuel while underway ships fuel is just a couple more lines to the tanker, it is not clear, to me, what the real advantage Nuclear energy is. considering that a Nuclear refuel is expensive and time consuming. All carriers use essentially the same power train, the only difference is in how the steam is generated.

On thinking about it, perhaps the advantage in not having to use hold space for ships fuel is that they can carry more avation fuel thus reducing the number of unreps required.

unrep = Underway replenishment.

My service
ETR3
USS John F Kennedy
1971-1973 including a 10 month deployment to the Med.

 

[YingYang]

Originally posted by: RossGr

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.

The Kitty Hawk and the Constellation are currently on station in the Red Sea, both along with the Kennedy are conventionally powered. So nuclear power is not NECESSARY.

Since even the nuclear ships must take on aviation fuel while underway ships fuel is just a couple more lines to the tanker, it is not clear, to me, what the real advantage Nuclear energy is. considering that a Nuclear refuel is expensive and time consuming. All carriers use essentially the same power train, the only difference is in how the steam is generated.

On thinking about it, perhaps the advantage in not having to use hold space for ships fuel is that they can carry more avation fuel thus reducing the number of unreps required.

unrep = Underway replenishment.

My service
ETR3
USS John F Kennedy
1971-1973 including a 10 month deployment to the Med.

You're right about the advantage that nuclear carrier has about carrying more Jet fuel. The extra storage tanks that carrys the fuel also serves to shield the personnel from radiation.
Now about all carriers having the same power train, I bet you a Nimitz class carrier can easily outrun a Kitty Hawk class carrier anyday. I don't know if the Enterprise is still in commissioned but at its heyday it was rumored to be the fastest military craft in the world (not including hover crafts).

 

[RossGr]

I don't know if the Enterprise is still in commissioned but at its heyday it was rumored to be the fastest military craft in the world (not including hover crafts

All Carriers are fast, perhaps the new guys can outrun the old timers, but it is more of a hull stregth issue then a power train. Top speed is more a factor of hull screw shape then how the steam is generated. A carrier can do 30+ knots in just about ANY sea condtion. I personlly can recall a high speed run in heavy seas as the Kennedy left a poor Russian crusier in the "dust" as we exited the North Atlantic in1972.

I think you are mistaken about the fastest Navel vessel, how many bubbleheads have you talked to? Nuc. Subs are FAST.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Kenazo
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.

maintenance on a B2 is higher, i'm pretty certain. the things are cared for better than a sterile couple's $15,000 invitro baby

 

[Perknose]

The Brits have always been behind us technologically on the high seas, at least since pre WWll. In WWll, the Royal Navy ran on coal, while we used oil. My Dad served on a fleet oiler, and saw his sister ship blow up big time from a direct kamikaze hit off Okinawa.

Btw, long after he had left the Navy, my Dad was asked to be the Chief Engineer on the Savanah, the first (and only) civilian nuclear powered merchant ship. This was around 1957, and he would have had to relocate to Houston (shudder), I believe, and he didn't want to uproot us.

My Dad didn't know squat about nuclear power. He had a mechanical engineering degree from the New York State Maritime Academy, but his being tapped followed the then energy utility industry practice of populating their nuclear plants with engineers raised soley on boilers and turbines.

The Savanah was, I believe, a joint military/civilian project - something like 'nukes for peace' where the military essentially donated the spent uranium needed for fuel -- which is why they turned to Lt. Commander George Henry Perkins, USN, ret.

My Dad died last Sept. 3rd at the age of 89. He will always be my hero.

 

[Looney]

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.

Well, some of the money is skimmed away to keep the aliens at Roswell too.

 

[YingYang]

Originally posted by: RossGr

I don't know if the Enterprise is still in commissioned but at its heyday it was rumored to be the fastest military craft in the world (not including hover crafts

All Carriers are fast, perhaps the new guys can outrun the old timers, but it is more of a hull stregth issue then a power train. Top speed is more a factor of hull screw shape then how the steam is generated. A carrier can do 30+ knots in just about ANY sea condtion. I personlly can recall a high speed run in heavy seas as the Kennedy left a poor Russian crusier in the "dust" as we exited the North Atlantic in1972.

I think you are mistaken about the fastest Navel vessel, how many bubbleheads have you talked to? Nuc. Subs are FAST.

One of my Electrician's mate friend's that served on the Enterprise told me that the Enterprise had high speed screws when it was first commisioned but when the front of the hull caved in they had to change the screw pitch. I forgot about the nuke subs, I heard that soviet fast attack subs are faster than ours because they have less shielding on their reactors. They're more concerned about speed than the safety of the crew. Maybe fobot can confirm this?

 

[UltraQuiet]

One of my Electrician's mate friend's that served on the Enterprise told me that the Enterprise had high speed screws when it was first commisioned but when the front of the hull caved in they had to change the screw pitch. I forgot about the nuke subs, I heard that soviet fast attack subs are faster than ours because they have less shielding on their reactors. They're more concerned about speed than the safety of the crew. Maybe fobot can confirm this?

The speed of a sub has little to do with the amount of shielding. It has to do with shaft horsepower, the pitch of the screw and the weight of the ship. The trade-off is of course noise. The faster you go the noisier you are especially with a "speed screw" installed. The Russians had a sub, the Alfa, that was rumored to be able to go 60+ knots. That sort of speed would be handy to out run a torpedo but the drawback was that every nub sonarman in the fleet could hear him as soon as they got underway. The Russians did reduce the weight and size of the Alfa by building it out titanium, not installing redundant systems and yes by reducing the shielding. They cut a lot of corners and ended up paying for it dearly on more than one occasion.