HMS Queen Elizabeth
Discussion
Condi said:
Sorry to interrupt the bad jokes, and not wanting to bash the process behind this as I realise everyone has an opinion and they are often like arse holes....
But was reading earlier about the powerplant in the new Ford class USN carriers, and their nuclear reactors being more powerful than ever before. Interestingly they were designed with twice as much power in mind as the carrier currently consumes, to allow for future developments and additions. Then I looked at our engines, to find we were using 2 Trent engines and some diesel generators, in total producing less power than 1 of the 2 nuclear reactors on the Ford class. Why didnt the MOD buy something with a nuclear reactor in it, which is surely an advantage in terms of not needing to refuel, as well as producing a lot more power. Surely we could have bought the USN's reactor if it was considered too expensive to finance the development of our own?
Look back a couple of pages But was reading earlier about the powerplant in the new Ford class USN carriers, and their nuclear reactors being more powerful than ever before. Interestingly they were designed with twice as much power in mind as the carrier currently consumes, to allow for future developments and additions. Then I looked at our engines, to find we were using 2 Trent engines and some diesel generators, in total producing less power than 1 of the 2 nuclear reactors on the Ford class. Why didnt the MOD buy something with a nuclear reactor in it, which is surely an advantage in terms of not needing to refuel, as well as producing a lot more power. Surely we could have bought the USN's reactor if it was considered too expensive to finance the development of our own?
Condi said:
Sorry to interrupt the bad jokes, and not wanting to bash the process behind this as I realise everyone has an opinion and they are often like arse holes....
But was reading earlier about the powerplant in the new Ford class USN carriers, and their nuclear reactors being more powerful than ever before. Interestingly they were designed with twice as much power in mind as the carrier currently consumes, to allow for future developments and additions. Then I looked at our engines, to find we were using 2 Trent engines and some diesel generators, in total producing less power than 1 of the 2 nuclear reactors on the Ford class. Why didnt the MOD buy something with a nuclear reactor in it, which is surely an advantage in terms of not needing to refuel, as well as producing a lot more power. Surely we could have bought the USN's reactor if it was considered too expensive to finance the development of our own?
1. costBut was reading earlier about the powerplant in the new Ford class USN carriers, and their nuclear reactors being more powerful than ever before. Interestingly they were designed with twice as much power in mind as the carrier currently consumes, to allow for future developments and additions. Then I looked at our engines, to find we were using 2 Trent engines and some diesel generators, in total producing less power than 1 of the 2 nuclear reactors on the Ford class. Why didnt the MOD buy something with a nuclear reactor in it, which is surely an advantage in terms of not needing to refuel, as well as producing a lot more power. Surely we could have bought the USN's reactor if it was considered too expensive to finance the development of our own?
2. aircraft cannot run on nuclear power so it needs refueling anyway
3. some foreign ports are closed to nuclear powered vessels
4. may be others
Ayahuasca said:
Condi said:
Sorry to interrupt the bad jokes, and not wanting to bash the process behind this as I realise everyone has an opinion and they are often like arse holes....
But was reading earlier about the powerplant in the new Ford class USN carriers, and their nuclear reactors being more powerful than ever before. Interestingly they were designed with twice as much power in mind as the carrier currently consumes, to allow for future developments and additions. Then I looked at our engines, to find we were using 2 Trent engines and some diesel generators, in total producing less power than 1 of the 2 nuclear reactors on the Ford class. Why didnt the MOD buy something with a nuclear reactor in it, which is surely an advantage in terms of not needing to refuel, as well as producing a lot more power. Surely we could have bought the USN's reactor if it was considered too expensive to finance the development of our own?
1. costBut was reading earlier about the powerplant in the new Ford class USN carriers, and their nuclear reactors being more powerful than ever before. Interestingly they were designed with twice as much power in mind as the carrier currently consumes, to allow for future developments and additions. Then I looked at our engines, to find we were using 2 Trent engines and some diesel generators, in total producing less power than 1 of the 2 nuclear reactors on the Ford class. Why didnt the MOD buy something with a nuclear reactor in it, which is surely an advantage in terms of not needing to refuel, as well as producing a lot more power. Surely we could have bought the USN's reactor if it was considered too expensive to finance the development of our own?
2. aircraft cannot run on nuclear power so it needs refueling anyway
3. some foreign ports are closed to nuclear powered vessels
4. may be others
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.
Core/fuel designs that last the life of the ship are available now, so refuelling is no longer a problem; all the other problems still apply though.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.
AstonZagato said:
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.
If it was the same presentation I'm thinking of they costed it out at approximately the same as the cost of buying the fuel, transporting it to wherever the carrier group is and replenishing, so for the US Navy it's an attractive proposition. I suppose the RN could gain the same logistical advantage by building an RFA with a reactor.220 said:
5. Issues with maintaining the reactor as Faslane isnt big enough so would have to outsource to US, or build a new facility in the UK.
Faslane could accommodate a deepwater berth for the carriers if it was deemed necessary, a sizeable chunk of the home fleet was moored there in mothballs after the war, up to and including battleships.hidetheelephants said:
brickwall said:
5. Issues with maintaining the reactor as Faslane isnt big enough so would have to outsource to US, or build a new facility in the UK.
Faslane could accommodate a deepwater berth for the carriers if it was deemed necessary, a sizeable chunk of the home fleet was moored there in mothballs after the war, up to and including battleships.Halmyre said:
hidetheelephants said:
brickwall said:
5. Issues with maintaining the reactor as Faslane isnt big enough so would have to outsource to US, or build a new facility in the UK.
Faslane could accommodate a deepwater berth for the carriers if it was deemed necessary, a sizeable chunk of the home fleet was moored there in mothballs after the war, up to and including battleships.There's also the political implications of having a nuclear reactor in a rusting tin box moored just a few hundred yards away from a densely populated area. That sort of decision is never going to be popular with the locals, even now the nearby schools get issued with anti-radiation tablets whenever a nuclear vessel pops by for a visit. Just in case.
There's an information pdf about what to do in case of a nuclear leak emergency. Basically they suggest you wait indoors until told otherwise - or death, possibly. Whichever comes first. (Don't forget to tag the body for identification purposes)
There's an information pdf about what to do in case of a nuclear leak emergency. Basically they suggest you wait indoors until told otherwise - or death, possibly. Whichever comes first. (Don't forget to tag the body for identification purposes)
Cold said:
There's also the political implications of having a nuclear reactor in a rusting tin box moored just a few hundred yards away from a densely populated area. That sort of decision is never going to be popular with the locals, even now the nearby schools get issued with anti-radiation tablets whenever a nuclear vessel pops by for a visit. Just in case.
There's an information pdf about what to do in case of a nuclear leak emergency. Basically they suggest you wait indoors until told otherwise - or death, possibly. Whichever comes first. (Don't forget to tag the body for identification purposes)
Just think of the Anti Racist Capitalist Trump Bomb protestors, ......that should be worth smashing all the Starbucks in PortsmouthThere's an information pdf about what to do in case of a nuclear leak emergency. Basically they suggest you wait indoors until told otherwise - or death, possibly. Whichever comes first. (Don't forget to tag the body for identification purposes)
Stickyfinger said:
Just think of the Anti Racist Capitalist Trump Bomb protestors, ......that should be worth smashing all the Starbucks in Portsmouth
Luckily, we don't get too many of them down here (protesters or Starbucks). On the whole the city is very proud and supportive of the Navy and its servicemen/women. Any mass collective of "Down with this sort of thing" hemp wearing placard wavers would have to be imported from elsewhere. Possibly Southampton.
You can have some from Faslane...there's been an anti nuke hippie camp set up across the road from the base for 30+ years. Used to be very big apparently, but now home to just a few crusty protesters, and most of the protests seem to be from little old ladies with CND signs at the base gate. Even they are outnumbered by cops when they protest...the base is too important for the local economy (pubs especially 
) for them to get too bothered.
) for them to get too bothered.Condi said:
Sorry to interrupt the bad jokes, and not wanting to bash the process behind this as I realise everyone has an opinion and they are often like arse holes....
But was reading earlier about the powerplant in the new Ford class USN carriers, and their nuclear reactors being more powerful than ever before. Interestingly they were designed with twice as much power in mind as the carrier currently consumes, to allow for future developments and additions. Then I looked at our engines, to find we were using 2 Trent engines and some diesel generators, in total producing less power than 1 of the 2 nuclear reactors on the Ford class. Why didnt the MOD buy something with a nuclear reactor in it, which is surely an advantage in terms of not needing to refuel, as well as producing a lot more power. Surely we could have bought the USN's reactor if it was considered too expensive to finance the development of our own?
This article goes some way to explain why they didn't use nuclear power for QNLZ http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-qu...But was reading earlier about the powerplant in the new Ford class USN carriers, and their nuclear reactors being more powerful than ever before. Interestingly they were designed with twice as much power in mind as the carrier currently consumes, to allow for future developments and additions. Then I looked at our engines, to find we were using 2 Trent engines and some diesel generators, in total producing less power than 1 of the 2 nuclear reactors on the Ford class. Why didnt the MOD buy something with a nuclear reactor in it, which is surely an advantage in terms of not needing to refuel, as well as producing a lot more power. Surely we could have bought the USN's reactor if it was considered too expensive to finance the development of our own?
Cold said:
Stickyfinger said:
Just think of the Anti Racist Capitalist Trump Bomb protestors, ......that should be worth smashing all the Starbucks in Portsmouth
Luckily, we don't get too many of them down here (protesters or Starbucks). On the whole the city is very proud and supportive of the Navy and its servicemen/women. Any mass collective of "Down with this sort of thing" hemp wearing placard wavers would have to be imported from elsewhere. Possibly
16v_paddy said:
This article goes some way to explain why they didn't use nuclear power for QNLZ http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-reasons-hms-qu...
It got one of it's facts sort of wrong though. The French carrier does have higher radiation levels than the regulations say it should but only if you use regulations newer than what it was designed to meet.And if you think our defence projects are bad - http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/frances-...
There is some irony floating around in the whole Nuclear/Non-Nuclear carrier argument in that right now: non-nuclear makes the most sense, but in future that may not necessarily be the case. Maybe. Or not. If the future of naval warfare does end up aligning to using directed energy weapons and electromagnetic rail guns and jet fuel does end up being something that can be electrically synthesised and the Americans do end up making those electric catapults and arrestors as reliable as the steam equivalents that they are to replace then maybe the equation will shift. But today : nope. More to the point - our carriers missile defence against air attack will be provided by non-nuclear destroyers and their ASW coverage by non-nuclear frigates. Making the carrier nuclear doesn't actually remove any of the requirement to to be able to supply their groups at sea with significant quantities of fuel at all does it.
At the moment, the whole nuclear carrier argument actually boils down to how big the tankers that accompany the group need to be. I am a bit of a fan of nuclear in principle, but compared to the cost of building, running and eventually the (often ignored part) decommissioning nuclear vessels: I've never seen any numbers that would survive a cost-benefit analysis.
When a nuclear carrier can act as a factory to produce fuel for both its aircraft and escorts then the equation could potentially shift, but at that point the debate equally becomes about a nuclear powered fuel factory ship to accompany a battle group doesn't it? But if we are into fantasy land and lasers and railguns then actually the escorts would potentially be nuclear and manufacturing the fuel for the carrier wouldn't they? Either way, it appears that we have actually made the correct choice on the QE class doesn't it? What am I missing? Is there even still a debate to have here?
Meanwhile - have we ever even asked the Americans for a price on taking care of our nuclear submarine decommissioning problem? They do it a lot. We...Don't. We get on well and share nuclear technology and materials : surely there is a deal to do there?
[New to the thread - keen to be told why by anyone genuinely qualified everywhere I may be wrong]
At the moment, the whole nuclear carrier argument actually boils down to how big the tankers that accompany the group need to be. I am a bit of a fan of nuclear in principle, but compared to the cost of building, running and eventually the (often ignored part) decommissioning nuclear vessels: I've never seen any numbers that would survive a cost-benefit analysis.
When a nuclear carrier can act as a factory to produce fuel for both its aircraft and escorts then the equation could potentially shift, but at that point the debate equally becomes about a nuclear powered fuel factory ship to accompany a battle group doesn't it? But if we are into fantasy land and lasers and railguns then actually the escorts would potentially be nuclear and manufacturing the fuel for the carrier wouldn't they? Either way, it appears that we have actually made the correct choice on the QE class doesn't it? What am I missing? Is there even still a debate to have here?
Meanwhile - have we ever even asked the Americans for a price on taking care of our nuclear submarine decommissioning problem? They do it a lot. We...Don't. We get on well and share nuclear technology and materials : surely there is a deal to do there?
[New to the thread - keen to be told why by anyone genuinely qualified everywhere I may be wrong]
Nice piece in the local rag interviewing Commodore Jeremy Rigby about HMSQE who quips that things "have been suspiciously easy" so far.
A few snippets of info about what the workers with spanners are up to for the next couple of months. Text and video.
Link to paper
(Obviously, this is a typical local newspaper website so it will be worthwhile enabling your adblocker)
A few snippets of info about what the workers with spanners are up to for the next couple of months. Text and video.
Link to paper
(Obviously, this is a typical local newspaper website so it will be worthwhile enabling your adblocker)
A little something to get you worried.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/12/br...
Sailor - "Enemy aircraft, they are targeting the carrier"
Captain - "Siri, lock on targets and fire missiles"
Siri - "Calling your wife"
Captain - "No, fire at approaching threat!"
Siri - "playing your chillout playlist"
It's not quite Star Trek yet.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/12/br...
Sailor - "Enemy aircraft, they are targeting the carrier"
Captain - "Siri, lock on targets and fire missiles"
Siri - "Calling your wife"
Captain - "No, fire at approaching threat!"
Siri - "playing your chillout playlist"
guardian said:
While most people tend to ask voice assistant Siri questions such as “What’s the weather going to be like today?”, the navy may have more ambitious questions such as “Who fired that missile?” – but Jones did not elaborate.
Who fired that missile? It's not quite Star Trek yet.
Hmmmm...the government and it's record on decent IT 
Captain:Launch missiles!
Sailor:Sorry Sir,the IT people say that wasnt in the original contract, they need another 2 years and an extra billion
Captain:OK launch countermeasures!
Sailor:Sorry, 15 months and 300 grand for that.
Captain:Bugger, what can it do?
Sailor:I can get it to turn the kettle on remotely if you like...a nice cuppa was 1st on Whitehall's list
Captain:Launch missiles!
Sailor:Sorry Sir,the IT people say that wasnt in the original contract, they need another 2 years and an extra billion
Captain:OK launch countermeasures!
Sailor:Sorry, 15 months and 300 grand for that.
Captain:Bugger, what can it do?
Sailor:I can get it to turn the kettle on remotely if you like...a nice cuppa was 1st on Whitehall's list
kowalski655 said:
Hmmmm...the government and it's record on decent IT
Captain:Launch missiles!
Sailor:Sorry Sir,the IT people say that wasnt in the original contract, they need another 2 years and an extra billion
Captain:OK launch countermeasures!
Sailor:Sorry, 15 months and 300 grand for that.
Captain:Bugger, what can it do?
Sailor:I can get it to turn the kettle on remotely if you like...a nice cuppa was 1st on Whitehall's list
Well it is British Aerospace....Captain:Launch missiles!
Sailor:Sorry Sir,the IT people say that wasnt in the original contract, they need another 2 years and an extra billion
Captain:OK launch countermeasures!
Sailor:Sorry, 15 months and 300 grand for that.
Captain:Bugger, what can it do?
Sailor:I can get it to turn the kettle on remotely if you like...a nice cuppa was 1st on Whitehall's list
(RN purchases Leopard Seals. BAe delivers penguins, fitted for, but not with teeth.....)
FF
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff