Army Rumour Service

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

CVF and Carrier Strike thread

Majorpain

War Hero
As the MN is unlikely to ask. The nuclear industry is very powerful in France and having a US reactor in the MN capital ship would be completely unthinkable.

Yes, the French Nuclear industry is one of the bigger ones around, however civil nuclear reactors use 3-5% Enriched Uranium, Current French "Caramel" reactors use c. 20% compared to US/UK naval reactors 90%+. France has produced HEU reactors in the past but current knowledge is really on the low end IMO.

Advantage of the 20% is it can be exported as the low enriched uranium can't be easily turned into "da bomb", disadvantage is it needs refueling more often.

It could be done if you really really wanted to, but in the real world of limited resources do you spend the $1.5bn on a new reactor or on extra planes/ships of a conventional carrier group? Same dilemma as RN with QE powerplant!
 
Cost is also a factor, though (sorry, not throwing it in as a counter-argument late in the say). Cost of operation was a factor in us not going nuclear.

It is - and a finely balanced one.

From the early 90s we were fairly clear that CVSG(R) was going to be non-nuclear, although the principal reasons for that were perceived preference for STOVL and the emerging realisation that nuclear defueling and disposal was going to be costly. Back then - Dreadnought aside - we had only just started to decommission the first gen SSN and SSBN and were just discovering that the lack of a HL waste storage facility (huge public outcry at the time) was going to be a problem. We were also watching the USN ditch their nuclear surface combatants and becoming aware of the tragi- comedy that was Soviet disposal policy. RR were also dealing with PWR2 and the various core designs, so throwing a surface ship problem at them on top might not have ended well.

I don't think a rigorous comparative costing was ever carried out, just a rough totting up of potential horror stories, followed by a "f8ck that for a game of soldiers" discussion.

Now, even the US are struggling with CVN65, which despite being defueled is still not on contract for recycling. Whereas five of the Forrestal/Kitty Hawk hulls have been scrapped and one sunk in no time at all, once decision made.

That said, the French have a surface ship nuclear support capability, they have a reactor design capability and there will be merit in reducing the amount of F76 you burn as it gets more expensive in the future. Will be an interesting design trade-off.
 
Last edited:
How long before campaigners suggest renewables vice fossil fuel or nuclear?

Much "Have you thought about wind? I'm told it used to work very well for navies" from the acolytes of Thunberg...
 

ECMO1

Old-Salt
Or rowers?
Would give the athletes paid training time for extended periods. Or you could take the Ottoman Empire approach and relieve prison overcrowding....

Although all those extra holes in the hull next to the waterline could be a small issue for the naval architects to plan for.
 
Or rowers?
Would give the athletes paid training time for extended periods. Or you could take the Ottoman Empire approach and relieve prison overcrowding....

Although all those extra holes in the hull next to the waterline could be a small issue for the naval architects to plan for.
Longer oars.
 
How long before campaigners suggest renewables vice fossil fuel or nuclear?

Much "Have you thought about wind? I'm told it used to work very well for navies" from the acolytes of Thunberg...
You may joke....need a lot of them for a QE and the approach would be interesting.

 
How long before campaigners suggest renewables vice fossil fuel or nuclear?

Much "Have you thought about wind? I'm told it used to work very well for navies" from the acolytes of Thunberg...


My photoshopping is for shit today but...

1594146092533.png
 
Telegraph are reporting that the FSS ships could be binned. What impact would this have on CVF operations? They strike me as fundamental to an independent carrier group.

The ability to sustain fighting forces at sea on operations will be gone after 2028 and spotty up till then. But logistics isn't cool so who gives a ****.

Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
 
Telegraph are reporting that the FSS ships could be binned. What impact would this have on CVF operations? They strike me as fundamental to an independent carrier group.

The article mentions "levelling-up" the economies of areas in the north . . . where shipbuilding happens.

If the Chancellor was not pragmatic by nature, circumstances have certainly forced him to be.

Damn sure this expenditure could be included in the "Infrastructure" programme, for revitalising the economy.

And, in-the-great-scheme-of-things . . . . a better idea than sending EVERYONE a £100 voucher, to squander in Pri-Mark/Pound Shop, in an attempt to boost the economy!!
 
I await the suggestion from Max Hastings (he’s still in his anti-carrier phase, I think) or Dominic Cummings that we sell one of the carriers to the USN as a replacement for the Bonnhomme Richard if that ship, as seems quite possible, is now too badly damaged to return to service...
 
Last edited:
Telegraph are reporting that the FSS ships could be binned. What impact would this have on CVF operations? They strike me as fundamental to an independent carrier group.


FSS is fundamental to any sort of sustained naval ops worldwide. QEC drives some of the requirement, but if you want a navy able to operate worldwide and do warfighting, then you need FSS.

If you don't want to do that, then you don't need FSS.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
The ability to sustain fighting forces at sea on operations will be gone after 2028 and spotty up till then. But logistics isn't cool so who gives a fuck.
I thought "just in time" was the cutting edge now.
That'll be handy for engine spares.
 
Singapore would seem to be an ideal place to base a carrier with Changi Naval base regulary supporting US Navy Carriers, and Sembawang having ship repair facilities. Several military airfields to base the Air Group when the Carrier is in dock and a strategic position to get anywhere in the Far East.

Mind you it didn't bode well when the last HMS Prince of Wales visited Singapore. After only staying a week she left Sembawang and didn't come back.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top