Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier sets sail tonight

People talking about the maneuverability of harriers... I'm after some education.

Does it really matter how maneuverable jets are these days? Granted it can't be some cumbersome thing.... but with technology being able to lock on to targets tens if not hundreds of miles away, even air to air, are any planes going to be able to evade up to date guidance technologies outside typical countermeasures such as flares?
 
Mucky_Pup said:
What was the reasoning for not making these nuclear? Purely cost?
Click to expand...

  • Numerous countries will not permit a nuclear powered vessel to enter their territorial waters, or canals. Egypt imposed a ban on nuclear powered vessels using the Suez canal in 1987.
  • Aircraft carriers only carry a month’s worth of aviation fuel, including the US and French nuclear beasts, so need to be refueled monthly anyway. Taking on diesel at the same time, from a tanker, is feasible.A reactor Adds 280% to the lifetime costs of a ship.
  • A reactor requires specialist personnel, and facilities, that are expensive to acquire and maintain. While diesel generators, and turbines require just a good motor mechanic.
  • It's harder to resell a nuke powered design / vessel, than a conventional one, so impacts the book value of an asset.
  • The UK, unlike France, has its own oil fields, so has a secure supply of fuel. Neither has it's own supply of uranium.
 
7fDnJeY.jpg


Quick snap i took out the back of my work
 
Mucky_Pup said:
What was the reasoning for not making these nuclear? Purely cost?
Click to expand...

I understand that it is also because it severely limits the number of ports that the ship can dock at, as many countries don't like nuclear-powered ships sitting in their harbors.
 
Steampunk said:
Luckily, we didn't spend millions updating our old Sea Harriers before selling them to the US at bargain prices.... oh, wait....
Click to expand...

Do you have the numbers of money spent and value before and after along with money gained?

Its akin to my wifes Galaxy S6 being dropped in the bog and having not much more value than scrap in its current state - but I'm spending a few quid on battery and charging port and now I can offload it with a few quid in my pocket. I expect those Harriers weren't worth much in their state but a few upgrades and we got something back for them rather than scrapping them
 
Barham2016 said:
  • Numerous countries will not permit a nuclear powered vessel to enter their territorial waters, or canals. Egypt imposed a ban on nuclear powered vessels using the Suez canal in 1987.
  • Aircraft carriers only carry a month’s worth of aviation fuel, including the US and French nuclear beasts, so need to be refueled monthly anyway. Taking on diesel at the same time, from a tanker, is feasible.A reactor Adds 280% to the lifetime costs of a ship.
  • A reactor requires specialist personnel, and facilities, that are expensive to acquire and maintain. While diesel generators, and turbines require just a good motor mechanic.
  • It's harder to resell a nuke powered design / vessel, than a conventional one, so impacts the book value of an asset.
  • The UK, unlike France, has its own oil fields, so has a secure supply of fuel. Neither has it's own supply of uranium.
Click to expand...

As I understand it the decision came down to Capital vs Revenue because lifetime costs were very similar. A gas turbine powered ship is cheaper but has higher operating cost because of the fuel usage. An nuclear carrier can actually act as a fuel store for other ships because all that bunkering volume is free. The labour costs undoubtedly are higher but you gain fewer operational limits. As to nuclear fuel the UK has one of the largest inventories of nuclear fuel in the World Eurenko (sp?) the fuel re-processor has a major facility in the UK we are up to our ears in suitable fuel hence the reason we use MOX in our civilian reactors. Finding fuel for a few ships is not an issue.

Nuclear would have given significant operational benefits regarding time at see and availability of steam or electricity for catapults. Gas turbines are a commodity item but they are pain in the backside for constant inspections and limited blade life. You are forever changing the buggers in and out.
 
jimjamuk said:
Do you have the numbers of money spent and value before and after along with money gained?

Its akin to my wifes Galaxy S6 being dropped in the bog and having not much more value than scrap in its current state - but I'm spending a few quid on battery and charging port and now I can offload it with a few quid in my pocket. I expect those Harriers weren't worth much in their state but a few upgrades and we got something back for them rather than scrapping them
Click to expand...

Sure, fill your boots. Here's one of the links.

IMO, it would have been worth hanging onto them just as a stop-gap until the (inevitably late) replacement turns up. Right now we've got a carrier with no planes, and another on the way, which is just silly.
 
If we'd planned to build a Catobar carrier from the get go we could have bought some cheap second hand Super Hornets off the yanks operated them from runways for a few years, operated them from French and American carriers and then used them as initial load out on the new carriers until the F-35 proved itself. They then could have formed half an air wing on each carrier when we did by super sexy new stealth fighters. Lets face it blowing medieval muppets back to the stone age has been our recent mission and they are plenty good enough for that. Even the yanks are planning to buy more as a stop gap to the F-35 actually turning up.
 
PlacidCasual said:
Lets face it blowing medieval muppets back to the stone age has been our recent mission
Click to expand...

I don't get how eager people are to only look at the current requirements and the very 100% most likely future ones - there would quickly be plenty of outcry if one of the lower likelihood but foreseeable requirements came to pass and we didn't have capabilities. It might seem like a waste of money to some but you can't reactively build the hardware and experience/skillsets to deal with many potential, even if not the most immediate, threats.
 
They should get Clarkson to drive it out. Would be a good episode of TGT.

But yea, scrapping the Harrier when they did was just dumb. They would have seen us until 2025. The US Marines are still using them, they even extended their life since they are holding together while the Hornets fall to pieces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom