Ship geeks in ere - US Carrier in UK

Mikeey44 · 12 Apr 2009 at 22:28

sw33t picture, ENGLANND

wordy · 12 Apr 2009 at 22:44

Flukester said:
5 times the size of one of our toy carriers

I take it you've never seen a 20,000 ton warship in the flesh then?

Overlag · 12 Apr 2009 at 22:53

Cybermyk said:
Looks a bit old and rusty tbh. You'd think they'd give it a coat of paint or two.

thats one of the reasons it stopped in portsmouth, to get a nice new paint job ready for its home coming

mike von shizzl · 12 Apr 2009 at 23:07

you guys may have the answer I'm looking for........seems you know way more about the carrier than i could find using google.

I managed to meet the CO of the ship and he gave me what i can only describe as a "collectable coin" . It's slightly bigger than a £2 coin and has a picture of the carrier and an inscription along the lines of "commanding officer Theodore Roosevelt", I have no intention of selling it as it was a nice gesture when he gave it to me, but I can't for the life of me come close to valuing it in monetary terms through the bay or google etc.

Anyone any ideas?

^^Gord^^ · 12 Apr 2009 at 23:12

Von Smallhausen said:
The factor in that decision would be cost.

Nuclear powered vessels are astronomical to run and carriers are the most expensive nuclear vessels of them all. Gas powered turbine powered are considerably less to construct and run.

Going back a few decades and I would agree with you but the price of oil is going to start to change that. With nuclear power you won't have to worry about the price of oil or the supply of it.

Navy studies suggest that compared with conventional turbines, nuclear power saves money over the 30-year lifetime of a ship only if the price of oil stays above about $70 a barrel.

Source: http://www.subcap.com/3-15-08 - Running Aground - NJ.pdf - Page 5

JBuk · 12 Apr 2009 at 23:13

^^Gord^^ said:
Going back a few decades and I would agree with you but the price of oil is going to start to change that. With nuclear power you won't have to worry about the price of oil or the supply of it.

Source: http://www.subcap.com/3-15-08 - Running Aground - NJ.pdf - Page 5

Do the planes fly on nuclear?

^^Gord^^ · 12 Apr 2009 at 23:25

JBuk said:
Do the planes fly on nuclear?

Good answer!

Of course, nuclear powered carriers aren't the magic bullet but would allow what fuel oil is available to be dedicated to the jets and synthetic fuel isn't far away (F-22, F-15, B-52 and C-17 have all flown with synthetic aviation fuel).

Actually the US make a prototype and the Soviets went further with a plane that was fitted with both convential and nuclear power! :eek:

Lets hope they don't do that again.

JBuk · 12 Apr 2009 at 23:31

Interesting, do the planes perfrom as good with synthetic fuel?

Azagoth · 12 Apr 2009 at 23:37

^^Gord^^ said:
Actually the US make a prototype and the Soviets went further with a plane that was fitted with both convential and nuclear power!

The Tu-119 in case any wants to look it up. It's a modified Tu-95 with the reactor placed in the bomb-bay, and due to the size/shape of the reactor a bump was added to the upper airframe too.

^^Gord^^ · 12 Apr 2009 at 23:39

JBuk said:
Interesting, do the planes perfrom as good with synthetic fuel?

At the moment they are using a 'blend' of oil based fuel and synthetic fuel but the performance from what I've read is the same.

They have had an F-15 at mach 2.2 using it.

Scania · 12 Apr 2009 at 23:48

Azagoth said:
Better picture here, showing off the Royal Ensign. I do have one somewhere with a Spitfire doing a low flypast of the Ship, but I can't find the CDR with it on just now.

Nice.