Future Aircraft Carriers For The Royal Navy

Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers, HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Queen Elizabeth for the Royal navy. The CVF's are meant to enter service in 2016-2018. Lets hope the government doesnt interfer too much which the project...

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• queen
• elizabeth
• class
• aicraft
• carrier
• hms
• prince
• of
• wales

[SuperAncientmariner]

@1STACCS I'm sure the designers know what they are doing. And I think I qualified my statement by specifying Carriers. And those carriers were retired because they were old and obsolete.

[1STACCS]

@SuperAncientmariner Regardless, a nuclear powered QE Class ship would be much more efficient and self-sufficient during battle and wartime operations, and cheaper to run over the long term.

Going to nuclear propulsion leaves massive amounts of space for Jet Fuel supply on board, because a nuke carrier doesn't have to store main propulsion fuel. This means less tanker refuels for the jet fuel stores, which means greater combat abilities. This means better carrier than what you have or dont.

[1STACCS]

@SuperAncientmariner Maybe, but Yes, but we both were referring to and speaking of Naval combatant ships, key word here is combatant. Ships that fight and are of said size should be nuclear. Hence, Kitty Hawk, JFK, Constellation=retired. Even the Iowa Battleships were so inefficient to run on fossil fuel at 57K.

As for a support logistical ship of 30k loaded down to DWT of 58K, I see no need for it to be nuclear. Logistical ships don't have to stay and fight like combatant warfare ships.

[SuperAncientmariner]

@1STACCS BTW, "any ship" was my bad. It should read "any aircraft carrier"

[SuperAncientmariner]

@1STACCS As for what you did or did not say, If you would care to return to the QE page and go right back (a long way I will grant you ) You stated that the almighty(sic) USN had decreed that any ship over 60,000+ tons (actually I think the figure was 65,000+ ) had to be nuclear powered ....ergo ships under that weight did not have to be.

Notice that the words "need to be non-nuclear" do not appear.(anywhere) I am not making up things, you are just not reading things.

[SuperAncientmariner]

@1STACCS The point is that those BAE systems are designed for and around the power output of the power plant. There is nothing the power plant cannot handle. And I'm afraid that even your supercarriers require a fleet train that includes tankers. (unless the aircraft run on something other than aviation fuel). And an Atomic powered carrier leaves a heat signature in its wake from its coolant system (raw water circ.from the condensers.)

[1STACCS]

@SuperAncientmariner 60-65K ton Carrier is still a large vessel and would be much more efficient with a nuclear power plant for energy. BAE is stuffing the some of the most advanced electronic warfare systmes on board and they will all use power. Going back to 115 year old fossil fuel technology, emitting large heat signatures and needing a tanker supply fleet for that QE is not efficient.

[1STACCS]

@SuperAncientmariner Nuclear power had a lot to do with Kitty Hawk being decommissioned. The energy demand of modern warfare electronics was taking a toll on those old ships, like Ranger and Kitty Hawk. Nuclear energy supplies an indefinite amount of energy to a naval combatant unit. I never stated that non-combatant ships 60K + do not need to be nuclear, and I certainly never stated that 60+ carriers need to be non nuclear.  Stop making up things in your head.

[SuperAncientmariner]

@1STACCS And again, the power requirement of a 60,000 ton carrier is not as great as a 100,000 ton carrier.

You keep going on but when have I ever denied the benefits of nuclear power.

[SuperAncientmariner]

@1STACCS I know Kitty Hawk was droppd 2 years ago but it was because of her age not because of any Nuclear fleet. The point is that up to 2 years ago, you had 60,000 ton conventional powered carriers functioning to the standard they were designed for. I don't recall Naval voices giving your argument when they were in commission. And I repeat, your navy has decreed (according to you) that carriers of 60,000 +tons do not need to be nuclear.