• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

The new carriers HMS QUEEN ELIZABETH AND HMS PRINCE OF WALES

#7
Screw the greens, I want some decent boats that float and move, and not spend half their life waiting for the AA/RAC sea equivalent to come out with a jerry Can of diesel, or wait for the credit card bill to clear before they buy more fuel.
If your going to have a floating airport at least give it some balls

also the navy could do with a bit of street cred, give them a toy they can use with anger (and go for the option that has no I Pod docking stations)
 
#9
The_Rattler said:
I sort of see what you mean, however how good is our credit, and can we only sail to places where we can get access to the gas pumps?
Nope they will take their own floating gas station with them. Do remember even the big nuclear carries used by the septics need a floating gas station for the planes. The extra though that they really need is a catapult.
 
#10
As has been pointed out in the countless other threads:
We don't have any nuclear powered aircraft or escorts, nor do we have ordnance made purely from sea-water. If CVF were solar powered, it would still need to be RaS;
8 - 10,000 miles is not an insignificant distance;
CVF no more needs to operate within sailing distance of a gas pump than the RTR need to operate within driving distance of a Shell garage. The Army has the RLC, the RN has the RFA;
Nuclear would triple the cost of the program, and for what?
Nuclear vessels still need emergency diesels which, when used, reduce sailing speed to a crawl;
There are huge security and infrastructure issues with nuclear;
The territorial waters of some countries are no go areas for nuclear powered vessels.

Nuclear being better is both simplistic and bollocks. In some areas it is better, in some worse. On the whole, it is just different.
 
#11
The_Rattler said:
I sort of see what you mean, however how good is our credit, and can we only sail to places where we can get access to the gas pumps?
Under the current MARPOL regs, we will only be able to sail between places we can get "gas"; unless they make a plan for new FTs!
 
#12
Oil_Slick said:
The_Rattler said:
Screw the greens,

Green is the new religion of the Left…
Bit facile, "sustainability" ought to be the religion of anyone not planning on checking out in the next fifty years, I suggest. Or who cares about their children, their children's children and further dilution of the "herrenvolk" DNA that constitues their biological identity down the line!
 
#13
The_Rattler said:
Screw the greens, I want some decent boats that float and move, and not spend half their life waiting for the AA/RAC sea equivalent to come out with a jerry Can of diesel, or wait for the credit card bill to clear before they buy more fuel.
If your going to have a floating airport at least give it some balls

also the navy could do with a bit of street cred, give them a toy they can use with anger (and go for the option that has no I Pod docking stations)
#

I wonder how long it will be before the navy hits something with one of them or runs aground?
 
#14
ottar said:
As has been pointed out in the countless other threads:
We don't have any nuclear powered aircraft or escorts, nor do we have ordnance made purely from sea-water. If CVF were solar powered, it would still need to be RaS;
8 - 10,000 miles is not an insignificant distance;
Nuclear provides all kinds of good stuff, for starters with no fuel required to be stored for the 10,000 mile endurance, we can get more aircraft and ordance on board.

Also (IIRC) don't US carriers have teh capability to resup their escorts? Not massively so, but still a capability.
 
#15
I suppose any weakness in an attack/mil operation is the supply line, if for an example we stretched ourselves a little too much and did not have a place to run too, the hope of an RFA ship with a Jimpy bringing up the rear with a can of gas does not really offer any more comfort.

So from this I can only assume then all Navy activity will be within 100 miles of the uk shores, anything more will be speichel projects.

As much as we need to look after the future of the planet and our kids, wars and conflicts tend to look at this as one of the latter options.

should we not save today and prepare for tomorrow rather than assume it wont or cannot happen

6 x P's
 
#17
Oil_Slick said:
The_Rattler said:
Screw the greens,

Green is the new religion of the Left…
Indeed it is, and it's remarkable how many of the leading lights in the modern Green movement were card-carrying Commies in their youth, or still are. It's as if having failed to cripple or societies through industrial action and a left-wing social agenda they are carrying on the war through another route.
 
#18
chocolate_frog said:
Nuclear provides all kinds of good stuff, for starters with no fuel required to be stored for the 10,000 mile endurance, we can get more aircraft and ordance on board.

Also (IIRC) don't US carriers have teh capability to resup their escorts? Not massively so, but still a capability.
Nuclear power does indeed provide all kinds of good stuff, but with the advantages come similar disadvantages. They do still need to carry their own fuel, both for the woefully underpowered emergency diesels and for various diesel generators. The bunkers are in the bottom of the ship to lower the CoG and are the same size as they are used for ballasting, so make no difference to hangar or magazine space.

Yes US carriers can RaS their escort's fuel, but that doesn't help with ammunition or food, etc. And they're not allowed to go to New Zealand, ours will be.
 
#19
ottar said:
chocolate_frog said:
Nuclear provides all kinds of good stuff, for starters with no fuel required to be stored for the 10,000 mile endurance, we can get more aircraft and ordance on board.

Also (IIRC) don't US carriers have teh capability to resup their escorts? Not massively so, but still a capability.
Nuclear power does indeed provide all kinds of good stuff, but with the advantages come similar disadvantages. They do still need to carry their own fuel, both for the woefully underpowered emergency diesels and for various diesel generators. The bunkers are in the bottom of the ship to lower the CoG and are the same size as they are used for ballasting, so make no difference to hangar or magazine space.

Yes US carriers can RaS their escort's fuel, but that doesn't help with ammunition or food, etc. And they're not allowed to go to New Zealand, ours will be.

You bring up this New Zealand thing everytime the subject is raised. I just can't think of any international situation in which a Carrier really needs to go to NZ, surely any situation can be solved by avoiding it (it's hardly in the center of... anything, is it?) or just by going to Australia instead. Is NZ the only country that prohibits nuclear ships?


While this subject has reared it's head again, I can't see how Nuclear power is anything but a good thing.
Yes other stuff needs to be replened, but oil must be the one major thing and thus it's a huge thing that doesn't have to be worried about, while it may not provide that much benefit in warfare when it will be useless without munitions or jet fuel long before it runs out of oil, these carriers are (hopefully) going to be used for force projection and throwing a bit of british weight around, which is what the RN is all about.
It will provide more 'future proofing' as oil will eventually run out whereas Nuclear power shows no such signs (and we could probably stockpile enough to make them run 100 years without too much bother).
Finally, why is it the right choice for the US and not for us? If it's purely financial then that's pathetic, we should be investing in these carriers as much as possible, if they are to be the center piece of our navy for decades.

And on the environmental issue, those idiots can do one, any real environmentalist, a number amongst which I count myself, has to realise that Nuclear power is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels in the near future. What's the bitching about? It's because the majority of just emotive pond life who couldn't care less about real world issues.

Ottar, I repsect your opinion on this don't get me wrong, you clearly know alot more than I do on the subject, but i can still see the only thing stopping the carriers from being Nuclear is cost, oh and not being able to go to NZ.
 
#20
CrownImperial said:
You bring up this New Zealand thing everytime the subject is raised. I just can't think of any international situation in which a Carrier really needs to go to NZ, surely any situation can be solved by avoiding it (it's hardly in the center of... anything, is it?) or just by going to Australia instead. Is NZ the only country that prohibits nuclear ships?
In WW2 New Zealand and Australia were strategically essential in the defeat of Japan. New Zealand has also been used as a platform for other conflicts in the South Pacific in the post-war period. If your ship needs repair avoiding NZ isn't something you want to be contemplating. Australia is not a stones throw away and could potentially become nuclear free in the near future. NZ is not the only nuclear-free zone, but for the UK, it is the most strategically important.

While this subject has reared it's head again, I can't see how Nuclear power is anything but a good thing.
Yes other stuff needs to be replened, but oil must be the one major thing and thus it's a huge thing that doesn't have to be worried about, while it may not provide that much benefit in warfare when it will be useless without munitions or jet fuel long before it runs out of oil, these carriers are (hopefully) going to be used for force projection and throwing a bit of british weight around, which is what the RN is all about.
It will provide more 'future proofing' as oil will eventually run out whereas Nuclear power shows no such signs (and we could probably stockpile enough to make them run 100 years without too much bother).
Finally, why is it the right choice for the US and not for us? If it's purely financial then that's pathetic, we should be investing in these carriers as much as possible, if they are to be the center piece of our navy for decades.
So why not have nuclear powered tanks? They're much more logs dependant than ships.
Incidentally, oil running out will have little effect on fuel as there are plenty of other sources for it. The oil industry makes its money from and we depend on other petro-chems. Petrol and especially diesel are little more than by-products, we use them because they are there.
The US has 11 carriers spread all over the globe, we will have 2. It makes sense for the US as they have economy of scale, we don't. There's also not a little bit of cock waving involved.
 

Latest Threads