Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier sets sail tonight

Rroff said:
Haven't checked to be sure but I saw some youtube comments couple of days ago saying that doesn't actually apply in respect to Egypt, etc. in the case of military vessels.
Click to expand...

What other types of nuclear powered vessels are there? The only one that comes to mind is a Russian ice breaker
 
Roar87 said:
Did some Googling. Seems reasonable it's Diesel.

  • 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, New Zealand 1984. Access to these territories and ports outweighs the 5 knot speed advantage a nuclear reactor offers. Being able to use the Suez Canal saves a month of sailing time from say Cyprus to the British Indian Ocean Territory.
  • 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.
  • There are 10 laid up nuclear subs sitting in Faslane, and another 7 that will join them in the next few decades. The subs or at least their reactor cores will need to be kept secure for the next 10,000 years.
Click to expand...


Ah, thanks for posting this. Makes a lot more sense then.
 
Roar87 said:
What other types of nuclear powered vessels are there? The only one that comes to mind is a Russian ice breaker
Click to expand...

Doesn't necessarily mean there are others.

From a quick google it seems only nuclear armed not nuclear powered are blanket banned from transit in many cases - Suez the information is a bit vague originally was a blanket ban but subsequently they've let foreign nuclear powered military vessels through on a case by case basis sometimes taking a large deposit.

Apparently the reduced logistics costs offset the increased lifetime costs of a nuclear reactor.

Specialisation and reselling plus dealing with the waste post decomissioning are significant considerations however.
 
A lot of ports will not allow nuclear ships to dock either. The range isn't really unlimited, unless you don't plan on feeding the crew of fuelling the fighters.

Nuclear comes with a bunch of other problems. At least if diesel engines get damaged in a battle, it won't kill everyone on board. It's not cheap to run a nuclear power plant either and you need highly trained (and highly paid) people monitoring it 24/7, even when it's not doing anything. They also don't have to do something with all the radioactive waste produced by it. A diesel engine can be pulled apart, repaired, recycled and upgraded quite easily and safely by any engineer.
 
Last edited:
Moses said:
And for balance what are the pros for nuclear?
Click to expand...

Essentially unlimited range without reliance on tankers refueling. In any open war the tankers would be a prime target.

That's a bigger thing for subs than aircraft carriers which would need fuel for the jets anyway.
 
What about the danger of being attacked and the aftermatch of such? I can't imagine a destroyed nuclear engine would be friendly to the immediate marine environment.
 
Diddums said:
I still can't get my head around the fact that we managed to launch a carrier in 2017 which runs on diesel. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...
It's kind of ridiculous isn't it, but it goes hand in hand with what I said earlier about building an outdated STOVL carrier when everyone else has moved or is moving towards CATOBAR (and they're all using nuclear). Trying to pinch pennies on something that's supposed to last 50 years (good luck with that when it's coming out of the gate with obsolete designs) is just silly, not that it matters, a new government will have scrapped/sold it within half that time as per usual anyway lol.

The tragic thing is we actually had CATOBAR carriers half a century ago, we made a conscious decision to downgrade them and their replacements in order to save money. I'm sure that decision was of great comfort to the soldiers/sailors who died during the Falklands war as a result...


mmj_uk said:
Hopefully we don't have any US Navy staff onboard, they keep getting hit by cargo ships. How useless can you be?
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, if you collide with an oil tanker and you're not an oil tanker yourself then it's your fault, there isn't really any grounds for defense there. It's like walking into a lamppost.
 
Nasher said:
Yes but over the next decade catapult launched fighters will start to become obsolete. The next generation of carrier based fighters won't need it. Once the F-35 proves itself that is how they will all be.

This carrier has been built to last 50 years or more. By then we will most likey have it launching 100s of remote VTOL drones which won't even need the runway.
Click to expand...

But carriers don't just launch fighters. Aren't there are other types of planes launched from fighters that are needed on the modern battlefield?
 
ubersonic said:
The tragic thing is we actually had CATOBAR carriers half a century ago, we made a conscious decision to downgrade them and their replacements in order to save money. I'm sure that decision was of great comfort to the soldiers/sailors who died during the Falklands war as a result...

Technically speaking, if you collide with an oil tanker and you're not an oil tanker yourself then it's your fault, there isn't really any grounds for defense there. It's like walking into a lamppost.
Click to expand...

How much more/less expensive is the option?
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
How much more/less expensive is the option?
Click to expand...
Hard to say really as we don't have any info on what it would have cost to build it as a proper nuclear powered CATOBAR carrier to compare to.

But for reference the Queen Elizabeth costs ~£3.1 billion. By comparison the French nuclear powered CATOBAR carrier Charles de Gaul is 16 years older and cost ~€3 billion (£2.75bn) which is about £4.5 billion in today's money.

So they did knock about a third off the price by cheaping out on the quality/capability. But considering we aren't planning to mass produce them I really think it was a bad decision. To put it in perspective the Indian conventionally powered STOBAR carrier Vikrant which will be commissioned into service next year has cost $3.77 billion (£2.93bn) to date. So basically we chose to save money and make a carrier on par with India's rather than one on par with France's.
 
Last edited:
Will the QE end up costing the 3.1Bill, or by 2022 when it is in full service are we likely to hear of a govt report being leaked where costs overrun and it actually cost 8.9B?
Might they actually achieve this target?

If so, considering that stupid American guided shell for the zumwalt ships was going to costs 20odd billion, for a weapon system they won't use, seems an utter bargain for the carriers!
 
I would far preferred the carriers to have been nuclear and catapult. But looking at it pragmatically, if the cost savings were the difference between having one carrier or two then it may have been the better of two non perfect options.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom