How big of an advantage is having a nuclear powered aircraft carrier compared to a conventionally powered one?
How big of an advantage is having a nuclear powered aircraft carrier compared to a conventionally powered one?
How big of an advantage is having a nuclear powered aircraft carrier compared to a conventionally powered one?
yeah
based as FUCK yeah poster
burn alive
Yeah.
yeah op
Pretty huge. That’s an aircraft carriers worth of fuel that the CSG doesn’t need to cart around. It leaves the oilers with more fuel for aircraft and the escort ships. Also the excess power generation can be useful
>It leaves the oilers with more fuel for aircraft
The navy has also spent the last 20 years researching ways to convert seawater into her fuel using a catalyst and a carriers' nuclear reactor.
>into her fuel
Jet fuel
It's easy to pull hydrogen from water and hydrogen jet engines have been researched in the past but were ruled way to expensive in the '60s.
I don't see how you could produce a hydrocarbon from O, H, Na and Cl.
maybe take the C from the poopoo of the sailors onboard
The Hyou get from the sea, the C out of the sky. It takes tremendous amounts of energy and is not deemed cost effective with currently available technology.
Given the constraints under which a carrier operates it could become feasible before (if ever) the general public uses it. Pulling hydrocarbons out of the ground and move them around afterwards is a lot cheaper.
Hydrogenas fuel has enormous technical challenges that make it highley unattractive as a fuel, despite its high availability on the seas.
Hydrogen engines also generally suck because the fuel tanks would kill any sort of thrust to weight ratio and space for weapons.
They just want the feed stock elements for this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process
The issue is that it is incredibly energy intensive but yeah there's been efforts made with the synthetic fuel program
https://www.zmescience.com/research/us-navy-synthetic-jet-fuel-seawater-0423432/
https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2819999/the-air-force-partners-with-twelve-proves-its-possible-to-make-jet-fuel-out-of/
No need to refuel, which give it infinite range and free up more space for other supplies.
>Also the excess power generation can be useful
You don't generate more power by being Nuclear dumbass.
A 100MW nuclear generator has the same power as an 100MW diesel engine
I think his point is that running a conventional carrier as an emergency power plant is a logistical nightmare as you need to keep refueling it while a nuclear carrier doesn't really care if it's at idle or full power.
>No need to refuel, which give it infinite range
Unless your crew and aircraft can also subsist off nuclear power, no, you definitely need to refuel/resupply.
You're factually right but it drastically skews the ratio
A Queen Elizabeth class carrier embarks with 4,000 tons of ship fuel and 3,000 tons of aviation fuel - it literally carries more to move the bote than the planes and this will still "only" take it halfway around the earth, once.
Don't forget that if she slow steams, it about doubles her range, but the second she blasts away at full ahead she's burning 150 tons per day of bunker fuel, if not more
Which in all likelihood is why bongs compromised and went for two non-nuclear carriers while the french went for a single nuclear one. The RFA dwarfs french auxiliary tonnage and is better able to manage the logistical footprint.
I’m pretty sure it was because of money. While they acknowledged nuclear would have been better, they couldn’t afford to outfit 2 nuclear ships.
I'm saying that without the RFA's ability to support 2 non-nuclear carriers it's probable that the UK would have followed the French and built a singular nuclear aircraft carrier. But yes, obviously it would be ideal two field 2 nuclear carriers.
>>Also the excess power generation can be useful
He is correct, the word you are missing is "steam"
>A 100MW nuclear generator has the same power as an 100MW diesel engine
i bet you think 1kg of feathers and 1kg of iron weighs the same retard
>i bet you think 1kg of feathers and 1kg of iron weighs the same retard
They the same mass yes you dumbass
but steel is heavier than feathers...
Assuming the point of your carrier is global power projection the biggest advantage of nuclear is you have more room for ammo, parts and jet fuel greatly increasing maximum time on station.
Not to mention everything in your armed forces runs off that jet fuel. Oh and if need be you can power a small city with your aircraft carrier during disaster relief.
>tfw we sent one of our carriers to Japan after that big earthquake to help them
>some smug French dickhead politician in typical smug French dickhead fashion asked if we were going to bomb the earthquake
>carrier's captain replied back that the carrier had enough medical supplies, food, and excess power to provide for something like 10,000 homes without affecting operations, and that we have 12 of them, how many does France have
>smug French dickhead politician shut his mouth and said no more on the subject
Or it might have been that big ass earthquake in Haiti a few years back. Either way, America, fuck yeah, eat a dick frogs.
>unrelated baseless frog derangement syndrom
France should be mocked until genocided.
>t. ngubu working in some russian troll farm in Bamako
How is that war against islamist rebels going for you blacky? Has Wagner raised their eyebrow yet against the tuaregs?
could be worse. could be french.
Nobody:
Some burger with french derangement syndrom:
>REEE FROOOOGS
Btw your story literally never happened.
Now tell us how it went for that carrier that was sent near Fukushima. Yes, you know, the one that got its water desalinization system contaminated which pumped cesium 137 everywhere leading to american sailors being contaminated themselves while they were just taking showers, suffering from acute radiation syndrome in the process, and not receiving any benefits anyway after leaving the service due to their injuries. A story that was of course buried but I'm sure a carrier specialist like you remembers. Right?
(verification not required)
>Zoomer meme template
>Angry on the french's behalf
Spotted the frogposter
>I hate frogs grrrr grrrr
>I’m shaaaaking
>I hate frogs soooo muuuch rhaaaaa
known spammer
what is he spamming exactly
known
We all fucking hate you, FYI
you cannot manufacture consensus for wanting the board to be 75% spam threads
your opinion does not matter
you do not matter
i do not think about you
It means you don't have to visit New Zealand
> feature, not bug
its more gooder
it goes nuclear taking the enemy with it
Non nuclear carriers are typically just called “helicopter carriers”
Explain to a brainlet that knows nothing about physics: Wouldn't the sinking of a nuclear ship cause desaster? Why not?
Water is a really good insulator.
Any blast that's strong enough to blast apart the carrier and breach the containment shield is probably going to pose more of a radiological disaster than the nuclear fuel aboard. If the carrier just sinks, the bottom of the ocean is a pretty safe place for the reactor to be. Numerous nuclear subs have sunk, and the world still turns.
>Wouldn't the sinking of a nuclear ship cause desaster?
It would, the reactor would sink and eventually rust away exposing the core. This would take years in shallow water and possibly decades in deep low oxygen waters.
Thing is unless it's somewhere with lots of fishing the radiation wouldn't really effect humans, fissile elements are heavy and will tend to just sit on the bottom.
They have 1/5th of the population of the US and 1/7th of the GDP. They can't afford to go all in on conventional force projecting and so long as they remain a close US ally they have no need to. Their goals nearly always align so being just another regional power with strong US ties works fine for them.
Geopolitics is a complex game with lots of moving parts and lots of options depending on your goals. The US has gone hard on military power and is using that to effectively be the wests PMC with them getting good trade deals out of most military interventions at the cost of spiraling national debt.
The US is counting on being able to shake down nations and make everyone too scared to collect and that is why the raise of China poses a huge long term threat to the US as a power.
As for how it works out the US could easily enforce their own tax laws to get a huge increase in tax revenue and solve the debt but elected officials have their own goals and interests that often don't align with the nation as a whole.
Given all the carbon burning ships that follow carriers everywhere I could see carbon capture from there exhaust being a viable source eventually. The atmosphere just has too low concentrations for me to think that's ever going to be viable.
It's not (all too) difficult to get co2 from the air, the difficult part is splitting off the o2 from the C. Because they are in a really stable configuration, being the end product of burning shit.
Getting it directly from the exhaust ports potentionally increases the capture efficiency (0.04% ambient air vs 10-15% of the exhaust gasses) but has its own problems (heat, size, transport to carrier, etc.). Usually it is far easier to just use/filter more ambient air than using such technological means, despite their apparent advantages.
CO2 is ~400ppm in air or 0.04% so assuming 100% capture rate you would need to process 2500 tons of air to capture 1 ton of CO2 which is only ~1/3rd carbon with the rest being oxygen.
You are looking at processing 7500 tons of air for 1 ton of pure carbon.
Yes, that is part of the problem. The good thing about that is how incredible easy the handling of air is - just get a bigger fan. Put a shroud around it and call it a turbine, which solves multiple problems at the same time.
7.5 ktons of air seems like a lot, until you compare it to other stuff like jet turbines that move 1.5 tons/s during take off. That's the 7.5 ktons in less than 1.5 h.
While all of this is doable, it is expensive (time, energy, technology) so it's not done.
You can use CO2 to produce synthetic natural gas, which can be used to produce synthetic petroleum.
wax hydrocracking is such a cool name for probably some very boring a technical process
>It would, the reactor would sink and eventually rust away exposing the core
do you have any idea how good water is at radiation protection?
you could sink the bare Chernobyl reactor in a few dozen feet of water and you'd barely be able to detect the radiation at the surface (the main problem would be the water boiling... and a ship reactor isn't going to explosively meltdown like an RBMK for simple reactor geometry reasons)
the worst case scenario is the reactor fuel and housing dissolving directly into the water, in which case it would still become so diluted it would be difficult to distinguish from the dissolved radionuclides (notably uranium) that occur naturally in seawater (mostly from erosion of granites - because yes, seawater already has uranium in it)
basically the only way a sunk nuclear ship becomes a nuclear hazard is if it occurs in a shallow port.
Why was Fukushima such a big deal then? I’m curious, if we can sink a carrier reactor but a larger reactor meant for powering cities had such a huge effect while not even being in the ocean. I’m assuming an earthquake can break apart a reactor just like a MRBM Can break apart a carriers reactor.
>Why was Fukushima such a big deal then?
Nta but because there was a town in spitting distance to the plant.
it was only a big deal because chinks made it out to be
Fukushima wasn't going to stay underwater, so there was concerns about blasting radioactive dust into the surrounding areas, and then the chinks and asiatics decide to make it a big propaganda thing when Japan started to release the Hispanicy water into the ocean despite it being a potential source of zero problems, which worked because most people are terrified of nuclear stuff because they don't understand it and everything they've learned from mass media says it's da worst thing eber.
The debt is not fixable by taxes, not by a mile.
Yes but unless it sank right near the shoreline it doesn't really matter. We have like 20 russian nuclear subs rotting on the bottom of the ocean, some near Norway.
well here is a hint: there are already sunk reactors in wrecks in oceans. The oceans have not ended
some of them in quite shallow waters too. pic related
>Wouldn't the sinking of a nuclear ship cause desaster?
If its russian made, yes
Salt water is coincidentally one of the best places for nuclear material to end up because it's not a good medium for spreading it well
>Lots to be desired there
Nah it's good
Not really. It can only launch a single type of fixed wing aircraft. That’s way less capable than older generation American carriers
>A single type of Aircraft that is better than all current opfor aircraft by a considerable distance
Whats your point?
Yeah that f35b sure is great at AEW or refueling aircraft. Fucking neverserved
>Fuckingneverserved
Wewlad post trouser size fatty
Seems to me the only nation to go up against a near peer nation was the UK with a ramp carrier and vtol jets, they stomped.
>they stomped
They also had to do the longest range bombing in history that took months of planning and missed the target because they couldn't carry bombs far from the carrier.
You can pretend there aren't drawbacks all you want but there are.
>Had too
Nah that was just a flex to show nuclear capable bombers could get there. It wasnt necesarry at all the RAF were scared or budget cuts.
>wasnt really a power
Had a carrier, submarines, well dug in defensive position 12,000km away from the UK. How many carriers did Vietnam/Subs did Vietnam have?
>Lacking capabilities
New era, new drone capabilities everyday. 2 ramp carriers > 1 gimped flattop carrier
This is a flavor of delusion that I haven't seen before. Bong supremacy LMAO
What day are they serving bangers and mash in the galley? Hahaha
>and missed the target
Yep as we all know Port Stanley airport wasn't hit. Oh wait, it was you lying tard.
The runway wasn't hit, you know the target of the raid.
>we hit inside the fence line
That is vatnik tier cope.
Except it was, rendering it unusable for fast jets. This isn't even a debate you're just plainly denying reality. If you wanted to make an actual argument you could claim the raids were more for morale (which is true) than practical effects on target. But the reality is that the runway was in fact hit and was taken out of commission (albeit briefly).
Argentina wasn’t really a power. It certainly doesn’t have anything to do with the new carriers lacking capabilities.
>near peer
Pretty embarrassing
This is worse
Imagine being THAT guy kek
Not him but not being able to launch tankers, AWACS and transports greatly limits the utility of a carrier.
I'm also
and don't think the UK needs a fully capable carrier with their current policy.
>it’s ok that the only aircraft we can launch can also be launched from LHAs and every other modern carrier
Aren't those things like barely the size of an America class?
Mobile powerplant that can feed small town in case of emergency. We do it with submarines.
Can it really though? I mean does it have like a gigantic power cable with it at all times?
Most recent example was Guam. USS Nimitz showed up to provide power and aid to the locals.
Future proofing can be done way more easily - Ford has like two times power generation it needs. Not to mention logistical footprint of nuclear carrier is smaller.
Nuclear carriers can maintain flank speed indefinitely and don't need refueling. Not carrying all that fuel oil also leaves more room for AvGas, ammunition, and compartmentalization.
Basically, the bigger you make a carrier, the more you want to use nuclear power.
They're also way cheaper than a nuclear carrier and Britain doesn't have the money to be fielding world class fleets anymore.
II never said they weren’t cheaper. I was just pointing out that they lack some basic capabilities that better carriers have
With a nuclear powered carrier, you can go anywhere you want.
The Queen Elizabeth class are two of the most formidable ships ever made, and are slightly embarrassing compared to American supercarriers.
The fact that both of those statements are true, simultaneously, really shows how fucked the rest of the world is.
I have a soft spot for them because they're the only ship on the ocean that can sit next to a Nimitz in the water and not look like a lost and frightened child
Shit I never realised how big the QE's actually are. I'm used to US carriers dwarfing everyone else.
>not a single aircraft on deck for the QE
Shit get it together bongs
Why would there be? The F-35's weren't ready for it.
Then why even bother? Seems embarrassing to parade a carrier without aircraft. Like a battleship without guns or missile cruiser without missiles
Humiliation fetish
Just creates a bigger environmental disaster when a missile inevitably sinks it.
Arguably, spilling millions of tons of flaming oil into the ocean is just as, if not worse.
The only reason not to use nuclear is cost. Conventionally powered ships will always have less utility
More cargo weight dedicated to aviation fuel and supplies for the crew.
Longer time at sea.
Less frequent stops in port.
These are all pretty good benefits if you send your carriers overseas frequently.
Massive
Fuck off warriorturd you literally eat shit
This is how you know anon is upset that the queen elizafart class carriers are bad
This is how you know warriorturd is upset that the bongs are so based
also, that he literally has no life
What do you think happened to him to make him this obsessed with Brits?
This is a script. You will now reply that a bong fucked his mother like you do every time you ask this question
This anon thinks he’s a journalist exposing wrongthink. Note the amount of time he must spend thinking about warriortard to even have this collage saved to his computer
Warriorturd thinks he’s a journalist exposing bongs. Note the amount of time he must spend thinking about bongs to have spent years posting bullshit and defending his bullshit
really embarrassing
He used to shill Russian equipment before the Ukraine war while shitting on western equivalents. Obviously he can't do that anymore after the Russians disgraced themselves so he just seethes about the bongs instead.
Are you mad? You don't seem to like when people expose your autism.
>collage for ants
All of Nigel’s insecurities catalogued in one place. Notice how he really doesn’t like the hate beans on toast gets.
Alright lets delve in!
>Outed himself as poor
Factory worker with a toolbag from Amazon, got caught replying to himself about his cool bag ($15 amazon) Tradies bullied him really bad.
>Doxxed his own wiki
Got caught editing to Bradley wiki and outed himself as Loafiewa, profile lists as Autistic loner. Change the location to Kent to cover his tracks.
>Doxxed his own Twitter
Filled with posts asking Jake Paul to notice him, posting fart fettishes and asking if other people can fart on command also looks at male dicks and wants to move to Canada.
>Posts his wifes OF images and requests
Shes a fat prostitute thats forced to sell her self online
>Posts fat out of shape Dog
Basically animal cruelty in an image, it was fat and pathetic resembling a wooden beer barrel.
>Has been obsessed with the British and the mighty Warrior for over 6 years
Guess Jake Paul isnt the only one he wants to notice him.
Try not to be mean to this anon, hes the most pathetic poster here. Who else could spare 8 hours a day for the past 5 years?
his wifes OF images and requests
>Shes a fat prostitute thats forced to sell her self online
When and where did that happen? Please post a link to the archive.
It got deleted, try search for it. It was disgusting.
How is anyone supposed to search for it? Try to remember the thread and post a link.
No you just have to believe. It gets him frustrated when we talk about it
Making up dumb shit is more of a warriortard thing, we are bigger than that.
Credibility lost
Not really, creditablitiy would've been lost if it wasn't questioned. Who thing reeks of warriortards coping ways.
*Whole
Incredibly based. Also I know who this is from PrepHole. How
Incredibly cringe you disgusting coprophilic pig
Meant to say how did the pickled onions turn out?
Not as good as the first batch. I think apple cider vinegar was not the direction I needed to go with them. I’ll keep trying
I had no idea you were also warriortard to be honest
Yeah it’s sort of a passion of mine. I like being categorically correct and impeachable and the British were an easy target. The warrior is just the most well known failed design but there are some other bad designs worth discussing. Going forward I think highlighting how bad the QE class carriers are due their ramps and conventional power sources.
You get more fuel. No carrier group has infinite range as the supporting ships aren't all nuclear, but it just means youve got to drag more oilers. If the fleet has the endurance required to support your foreign policy and the deployment time requirements you've got set, then its basically fine.
Also your ramp thread went 404, did someone point out the QE was supposed to have catapults but the US made catapults don't work which forced them to get the F-35B whilst they devise an alternative? Cos the US EMALS catapult fails 7% of launches and gas to be fixed.
Ironically the main advantage of nuclear is you dont have to rely on shit US made electric catapults
>The QE was designed for the US made EMALS catapult but it's broken and they haven't managed to fix it so the QE had to settle for the F-35B until they can come up with an alternative
>The US carrier using it (Gerald Ford?) fails 7% of launches
>The space for the catapult is there whilst the bongs look for an alternative
>The fucked catapult design was gonna cost 600 million bongbucks per ship and would cripple both carriers
So the advantage is that your planes take off
The fort class a much higher sortie rate than the QE class.
If the QE class installed the catapult they'd be literally useless. They wouldn't even be able to scramble the whole air wing. And when one catapult fails, they all fail and have to be fixed. I guess BAE will have to have a go and see if they have more luck with it.
I don't think the QE class fails to launch aircraft 7% of the time followed by then having to fix something. Its a shame as it ahowed a lot of promise
Ask me anything about non-classified reactor stuff.