that's not very accurate though.

people come up with all kinds of figures for de-commissioning, the reality is that this is pure guesswork and scaremongering, yes it's not cheap, but the kind of figures banded about are laughable, just how much fuel do you think these things have in them? even if you include all the low level stuff when they are scraped, it's not that significant, compared to the levels of low level nuclear waste the NHS generates.

Yes, I agree, dry dock facilities are a bit of a sticking point, however, realistically, if we are going to have a viable navy, don;t you think we should have this kind of facility anyway?

(if we can justify it for a single class of sub, what is a ship any different?)

their new carrier has cost some $9Bn in design, not making it, currently they are something like $4-5Bn build cost.

I agree, I just wish they would stop fannying around and build them, the longer they take, the more it costs and the more compromised they become.

as an example, MS Queen Elizabeth cruise ship at some 91,000 tonnes (ie, half as much again as the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier) took 15 months from Laid down to in-service and cost ~£350M, now, I appreciate an aircraft carrier is a little more complex in some respects than this, however, how the hell does it suddenly cost north of £3Bn - ie. almost 10x the amount?

and before somebody goes on about one off's etc, cruise ships this size are hardly mass-produced.

the difference is that this is commercial building, with commercial budget's and controls, and without the goal-posts continually being moved.

With regards to the nuclear propulsion side of things, there is a nuclear facility of some sort at Rosyth, where QEC is being assembled in dry dock.

Not sure what sort of facility, but if they really wanted to make her nuclear, given the amount of investment in infrastructure elsewhere, at the dry dock itself in Rosyth, which was never big enough for the ship before they spent millions widening it, adding new doors, a new crane, etc, and at all the other build yards, it probably wouldn't have been that big a deal to create a re-fuelling facility at Rosyth?

However, as i understand it, the initial outlay was the main driving factor behind the GT/electric propulsion route, as opposed to nuclear.

Had they decided from the start that QEC was to be nuclear though, they wouldn't have shut it in 2001/2002. We knew about CVF from as early as '98. The fact that they've since shut the facility might not have been a driving factor in that decision. Might have been, but really, who knows?

Or doesn't want to work in the sthole that is Barrow!

Anyway, it seems we mostly agree on the reasoning.

I see QEC in the shed here on a daily basis, but i was in Rosyth recently, standing in the hangar taking a look at the weapons lifts, and man, it's a big boat!

Looking forward to seeing her finished. Although i'll need to find a new job!

Ha, sure it is!

No, i can't. But then, i'm not a welder, i'm a structural/stress/design engineer, whatever you want to call it.

I'll be spending more time in rosyth too as build progresse Doogz, starting next month with my first trip there. Have seen LB02 and am looking forwrd to geting on Superblock 3.

Also can't wait to be doing sea trials in a few years too!! It's going to be one hell of an experience.

Yeah, mainly, with one day a week in Frimley as part of Mission Systems.

isnt it going to be a massive problem for our navy if the scottish do manage to get independence? as they'll inherit our only nuclear refuelling depot?

ahh its all good then

There is the problem though of where the bomber fleet will reside if they force close Faslane. Unlikely due to the numbers it employs but who knows with an idiot like Salmon in charge.

For example, Dounreay would have been the perfect site for a new build - existing infrastructure, SQEP people, pro nuclear local population, would take up the slack in employment downturn as UKAEA site winds down, but no Salmon is anti-nuke. Silly IMO.