HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier

[MillCreek]

I am watching 'Impossible Engineering' on the Science Channel right now.  The episode is about the building of the HMS Queen Elizabeth.  They just spent some time going over the propulsion system: using diesel generators to drive electric motors, with gas turbines that are used for high-speed cruising.

I wonder why the Royal Navy did not use nuke propulsion for the carrier.  They have had nuclear submarines for several decades, so clearly they have the industrial and knowledge base for Naval nuclear propulsion.

[Boomhauer]

Supposedly high cost

[AmbulanceDriver]

*heh* watched the same show - came into it about 10 minutes in and was wondering the same thing - why no nuke?

[230RN]

How's the nuke=eek! mentality in GB?  Is it worse than in the US?  Might that explain it? 

[vaskidmark]

If it has a reactor it canot make liberty calls at many traditional ports.

The Brits first took away flogging, and then rum.  Can you imagine what the response would be if they dropped somewhee like a third of their liberty ports?

stay safe.

[French G.]

Not sure if joke or not but truly you do get jerked around when riding a CVN. I went pierside everywhere in an oil burner. And the euro-zone is pretty allergic to nukes, see Rosetta probe. Coulda been broadcasting from a comet with an RTG but no, had to have solar. Well played morons. The nuke subs pretty much have to be nuke to do their job, were built in the time of thatcher and pretty much just come and go from Scotland. Not very publicly visible.

[RevDisk]

Not sure if joke or not but truly you do get jerked around when riding a CVN. I went pierside everywhere in an oil burner. And the euro-zone is pretty allergic to nukes, see Rosetta probe. Coulda been broadcasting from a comet with an RTG but no, had to have solar. Well played morons. The nuke subs pretty much have to be nuke to do their job, were built in the time of thatcher and pretty much just come and go from Scotland. Not very publicly visible.

I never exactly understood that. But I have heard more than a couple countries are so nuke free, they don't even allow visits from nuclear powered vessels. Somehow fossel fuel is perfectly accepted.

What's the story there?

[vaskidmark]

I never exactly understood that. But I have heard more than a couple countries are so nuke free, they don't even allow visits from nuclear powered vessels. Somehow fossel fuel is perfectly accepted.

What's the story there?

You might just sneak your reactor-driven ship into the harbor and blow up the whole country.

Any country that has a nuclear-powered navy is just a war-mongering devil.

We are jealous.

It's amazing how an American nuke-powered CV can stand off-shore and run cables/pipes and supply an entire island decimated by a typhoon with electricity and potable water without the shipboard lights going dim, but just try to bring American dollars and sailors itching to be fleeced to port in one of those tubs.

I can't remember if Japan has lifted its ban on nuke-powered anything.  Of Course they are the only country (so far) that might have a reason to dislike the notion.

stay safe.

[French G.]

Japan had to if they wanted a safety net. We retired the CV based there (Kitty Hawk, usually known by other names), replaced it with the Washington.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

On this note:  What is with the "ski jump" runway on Brit (and other European) aircraft carriers?  Not at all a navy guy, but the Queen Elizabeth style carriers look like they can only launch one at a time.

[MillCreek]

On this note:  What is with the "ski jump" runway on Brit (and other European) aircraft carriers?  Not at all a navy guy, but the Queen Elizabeth style carriers look like they can only launch one at a time.

If you don't have catapults to launch your aircraft, the ski jump is the next best option. 

[roo_ster]

On this note:  What is with the "ski jump" runway on Brit (and other European) aircraft carriers?  Not at all a navy guy, but the Queen Elizabeth style carriers look like they can only launch one at a time.

No catapult.  Built for V/STOL aircraft to get a bit more loft.  A severely limiting approach relative to catapults, but the best some countries can manage.  Recovery of such limited aircraft can either be vertical landing or cable arrest.

[HankB]

. . . The Brits first took away flogging, and then rum . . .

Though there's some debate about whether he originated the expression, Sir Winston Churchill, when questioned about British Navy traditions, allegedly said "Traditions in the Royal Navy? The only traditions in the Royal Navy are rum, buggery, and the lash!"

So I suppose with rum and the lash gone, there's only one tradition left . . .

    

[MechAg94]

I thought the ski jump was to launch vertical take off aircraft using less fuel than a direct take off.  I don't think the ski jump allows use of regular jets.

[MillCreek]

I thought the ski jump was to launch vertical take off aircraft using less fuel than a direct take off.  I don't think the ski jump allows use of regular jets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOBAR

There are some conventional-takeoff Russian jets, and variants and copies thereto, that can use the ski jump. The needed high thrust-to-weight ratio is a limiting factor.

[Scout26]

I thought the Brits have retired/were retiring all their (Sea) Harriers?  If so, what are they replacing them with on the HMS QE ?  Helicopters don't need a ski jump to take off.

[roo_ster]

I thought the Brits have retired/were retiring all their (Sea) Harriers?  If so, what are they replacing them with on the HMS QE ?  Helicopters don't need a ski jump to take off.

F-35B.  The USMC VTOL version.

[Hutch]

F-35B.  The USMC VTOL version.

Poor, foolish bastards.

[French G.]

Poor, foolish bastards.

+1 soon to be +1111111 as the things get delayed and ever more useless.

[RocketMan]

+1 soon to be +1111111 as the things get delayed and ever more useless.

McNamara's moldy corpse must be laughing its ass off.

[roo_ster]

How many times must we develop a "joint" or "multi-service" platform as a cost-savings measure to only realize that the additional requirements tossed on by each new participant bloat the costs more than discrete platforms and development programs? 

The F-35 will end up being a bloated hog with wings that costs more than the F-22, mark my words.

[lupinus]

I believe it already does cost more than the f22. And the damned thing isn't even finished yet.

[Scout26]

How many times must we develop a "joint" or "multi-service" platform as a cost-savings measure to only realize that the additional requirements tossed on by each new participant bloat the costs more than discrete platforms and development programs? 

The F-35 will end up being a bloated hog with wings that costs more than the F-22, mark my words.

You forgot the part where "It will do everything it is supposed to do, half-assed."