HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Nanook said:
MartG said:
NDA said:
andym1603 said:
Reading on the teletext this morning, She was refuelled twice at Invergordon during sea trials. 4,000,000 litres each time. Would that be brimming the tanks or a splash and dash?
Jebus!What's that going to cost??
tload more that it would have cost to fit nuclear reactors 
Arguements against nuclear power - http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-qu...
Given that an aircraft carrier (once it has aircraft) needs to be resupplied with jet fuel anyway, does nuclear power really increase the range?
On the subject of fuel, do the ship's gas turbines have to run on separate fuel to the diesel engines? Could you get away with one type of fuel for everything including aircraft?
On the subject of fuel, do the ship's gas turbines have to run on separate fuel to the diesel engines? Could you get away with one type of fuel for everything including aircraft?
Nanook said:
MartG said:
NDA said:
andym1603 said:
Reading on the teletext this morning, She was refuelled twice at Invergordon during sea trials. 4,000,000 litres each time. Would that be brimming the tanks or a splash and dash?
Jebus!What's that going to cost??
tload more that it would have cost to fit nuclear reactors It's not just the massive up-front cost. The ongoing maintenance and engineering requirements for nuclear propulsion are unbelievably expensive, not to mention the knock-on impact on all the other maintenance costs which get much more complex/pricey now you're dealing with a nuclear-powered ship. This means you need a bigger and more expensive crew, which means you have to either make the ship slightly bigger or sacrifice some space and capability elsewhere.
And all this cost happens before you've thought about any mid-life refuelling, or what you do if anything goes wrong.
brickwall said:
I'm fairly certain that even accounting for fill-ups at £2m a time, conventional power is/was still much cheaper than nuclear over the total lifetime of the ship.
It's not just the massive up-front cost. The ongoing maintenance and engineering requirements for nuclear propulsion are unbelievably expensive, not to mention the knock-on impact on all the other maintenance costs which get much more complex/pricey now you're dealing with a nuclear-powered ship. This means you need a bigger and more expensive crew, which means you have to either make the ship slightly bigger or sacrifice some space and capability elsewhere.
And all this cost happens before you've thought about any mid-life refuelling, or what you do if anything goes wrong.
Interesting stuff, thanks.It's not just the massive up-front cost. The ongoing maintenance and engineering requirements for nuclear propulsion are unbelievably expensive, not to mention the knock-on impact on all the other maintenance costs which get much more complex/pricey now you're dealing with a nuclear-powered ship. This means you need a bigger and more expensive crew, which means you have to either make the ship slightly bigger or sacrifice some space and capability elsewhere.
And all this cost happens before you've thought about any mid-life refuelling, or what you do if anything goes wrong.
So my post Euromillions yacht is going to have to run on dinosaur juice after all.
Dr Jekyll said:
Given that an aircraft carrier (once it has aircraft) needs to be resupplied with jet fuel anyway, does nuclear power really increase the range?
On the subject of fuel, do the ship's gas turbines have to run on separate fuel to the diesel engines? Could you get away with one type of fuel for everything including aircraft?
I think I once saw a presentation online that nuclear reactors could be used to synthesise jet fuel from seawater. It was a ferociously expensive process but, when compared to resupplying an aircraft carrier in a hostile environment, it started to make sense.On the subject of fuel, do the ship's gas turbines have to run on separate fuel to the diesel engines? Could you get away with one type of fuel for everything including aircraft?
Dr Jekyll said:
Given that an aircraft carrier (once it has aircraft) needs to be resupplied with jet fuel anyway, does nuclear power really increase the range?
Reading the 'save the Royal Navy's link above - no.In reality, yes. The space you wouldn't be using for storing diesel could be used for jet fuel. This would reduce the number of visits you'd need for refueling, and the supply ships carrying the diesel would have more fuel available for other ships in the carriers battle group.
I don't know why they don't just come out with it - we couldn't afford it and even if we could -Britain doesn't the technical capacity to be able to build it.
Cobnapint said:
Reading the 'save the Royal Navy's link above - no.
In reality, yes. The space you wouldn't be using for storing diesel could be used for jet fuel. This would reduce the number of visits you'd need for refueling, and the supply ships carrying the diesel would have more fuel available for other ships in the carriers battle group.
I don't know why they don't just come out with it - we couldn't afford it and even if we could -Britain doesn't the technical capacity to be able to build it.
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary operates several tankers with RAS capabilityIn reality, yes. The space you wouldn't be using for storing diesel could be used for jet fuel. This would reduce the number of visits you'd need for refueling, and the supply ships carrying the diesel would have more fuel available for other ships in the carriers battle group.
I don't know why they don't just come out with it - we couldn't afford it and even if we could -Britain doesn't the technical capacity to be able to build it.
SantaBarbara said:
Cobnapint said:
Reading the 'save the Royal Navy's link above - no.
In reality, yes. The space you wouldn't be using for storing diesel could be used for jet fuel. This would reduce the number of visits you'd need for refueling, and the supply ships carrying the diesel would have more fuel available for other ships in the carriers battle group.
I don't know why they don't just come out with it - we couldn't afford it and even if we could -Britain doesn't the technical capacity to be able to build it.
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary operates several tankers with RAS capabilityIn reality, yes. The space you wouldn't be using for storing diesel could be used for jet fuel. This would reduce the number of visits you'd need for refueling, and the supply ships carrying the diesel would have more fuel available for other ships in the carriers battle group.
I don't know why they don't just come out with it - we couldn't afford it and even if we could -Britain doesn't the technical capacity to be able to build it.
Dr Jekyll said:
Given that an aircraft carrier (once it has aircraft) needs to be resupplied with jet fuel anyway, does nuclear power really increase the range?
On the subject of fuel, do the ship's gas turbines have to run on separate fuel to the diesel engines? Could you get away with one type of fuel for everything including aircraft?
The gas turbines can run on aircraft fuel, or marine diesel, they'll normally run using diesel.On the subject of fuel, do the ship's gas turbines have to run on separate fuel to the diesel engines? Could you get away with one type of fuel for everything including aircraft?
Mave said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Given that an aircraft carrier (once it has aircraft) needs to be resupplied with jet fuel anyway, does nuclear power really increase the range?
On the subject of fuel, do the ship's gas turbines have to run on separate fuel to the diesel engines? Could you get away with one type of fuel for everything including aircraft?
The gas turbines can run on aircraft fuel, or marine diesel, they'll normally run using diesel.On the subject of fuel, do the ship's gas turbines have to run on separate fuel to the diesel engines? Could you get away with one type of fuel for everything including aircraft?
brickwall said:
whilst the aircraft will normally take Jet-A.
You wouldn't use Jet-A (or Jet-A1) by choice because it lacks the icing inhibitor FSII and the corrosion inhibitor Hitec E-515. Furthermore the flash point of Jet-A is too low at 38C for use on board a ship.The fuel of choice would be AVCAT (Aviation Carrier Turbine), also known by the NATO code F44.
brickwall said:
As above. The ship's gas turbines will normally run on marine diesel, whilst the aircraft will normally take Jet-A. I'm sure if you really wanted the marine gas turbines could probably run on Jet-A, or quite a lot else for that matter, but it's less than ideal.
Not wishing to give away any secrets, but it is quite possible they have a special spec for their aircraft fuelSantaBarbara said:
Not wishing to give away any secrets, but it is quite possible they have a special spec for their aircraft fuel
Well yes, different types of aircraft fuel have different specs, just like unleaded petrol has a special spec and so does super unleaded. The basic gas turbines for Queen Elizabeth were originally designed for aviation fuel then modified for diesel, so they can run on either. The specs for aviation fuel are actually easier to design for than diesel because they have a higher coking temperature, a lower waxing temperature and lower levels of corrosive contaminants.Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff