How come it doesn't have a nuclear reactor?

>>34406572
Because everyone that isn't the US or China is poor.

>>34406572
Nuclear reactors are classified as an assault weapon in Britain.

>>34406572
out of solidarity with other muslim countries that can't have one either

>>34406572
Nuclear reactors are expensive and are only useful for long range cruising. For the USN it's perfect since we deploy forces all over the world. For anyone else it's basically a waste of money.

>>34406572

Because nuclear comes with significant startup, upkeep and decommissioning costs. It simply isn't effective in terms of manpower and cost for the capability it brings, unless you are working at the same scale as the USN.

RN didn't need another engineering branch opened.

File: get.png (160KB, 320x272px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 320x272px

>>34406588

>>34406581
De Gaulle has a reactor.

>>34406634

Based off a submarine one and they've regretted that choice every single day.

>>34406572
Because the British don't have a design for a big enough shipboard reactor. This means they would have either had to accept massive costs (and thus a likely cancellation of one of the ships) or end up with an unreliable ship that spent more time in dock eating up the budget then actually doing things. The QE class is actually a good example of risk mitigation, the RN wanted two carriers they could use and made a design that ensured they would get two usable carriers.

Without a ready to go reactor design the only option would have been to cluster their existing sub reactors. This is what the USN did with the Enterprise and the French did with the de Gaulle. Both of those were absolute disasters in terms of reliability, most problems coming from the fact they were using multiple underpowered reactors.

Going conventional let the RN get multiple carriers that will be able to actually go to sea. That is worth far more then being able to say that your one carrier in dry dock is nuclear powered.

>>34406634
And it's a fucking train wreck that's in dock all the time. Not a great example.

>>34406583
Bin that reactor!

>>34406717
>meme unsubstantiated opinion
It's availability is actually above average, and after the teething issues it never went into drydock other than for the regular initially scheduled maintenance.
It's only fault is that there's only one of it.

>>34406717

how so?

>>34406581
China doesn't even have the capability to produce steam turbines for ship and had to retrofit smaller diesel engine, which limit its speed to 20 knot

>>34406978
>It's availability is actually above average
lol
>It's only fault is that there's only one of it.
Which is largely caused because its nuclear.

>>34406978
>It's availability is actually above average,
>>34407101

Somebody on here put it on the the other day she's spend nearly a third of her life in drydock alone, not including just plain old dock

The decision was made to have two carriers with conventional propulsion as opposed to one with a nuclear reactor.

It's basically a modern Kitty Hawk. They don't have the bodies or the funding for a Nimitz and they already have several unsinkable aircraft carriers in the form of Overseas Territories, so what they wanted to achieve was best done by the conventional route.

>>34406609
that is so rhetorical you make me sick

>>34406572

Primary reason? Britain doesnt need an extra fleet of carriers to support the carriers it has and Britain doesn't have an agreement to allow their vessels through the Suez, which blocks nuclear vessels outside the US, hence why none nuclear shipping isn't a thing despite the benefits of a nuclear reactor powered ship.

>>34406634

and they have it in dry dock 7 months out of the year in repair/maintenance because they decided to only make one which means it has less than 50% readiness rate.

For every nuclear carrier, you need 2 more since you are guaranteed to have at least 1 in maintenance at all times. That means that Britain would have to have 2 more carriers to maintain a constant carrier fleet where as with the diesel carriers, maintenance takes less than a month and they can overlap each other's maintenance cycles so there's always an available carrier in case we need to deploy or support.

Nuclear carriers have their benefits but they also have a slough of negatives you have to contemplate.

Now if we did go nuclear then a more automated Nimitz would be perfect for our role and I believe when we were exploring the QE procurement process, Bush was talking about selling us the design plans for them as the Nimitz was already under the process of being replaced with Fords and a modernised Nimitz would still be superior to anything outside the US.

Of course we refused and decided to fund the tax sinks that are the QE class but what can you expect?

>Russia will get atomic carrier soon
lmao britcucks at suicide watch with their barge

>>34406702
Also Britain doesn't have enough of an existing Nuclear support structure to support two Nuclear capable carriers. The cost just wouldn't have been feasible to build all that support infrastructure also. While yes you could now then base American carriers out of said port but again. Far too high a cost for the RN and British Government

>>34407088
>had to retrofit smaller diesel engine
Not exactly. It's just that steam turbine produces higher power output than diesel engine of roughly similar size.

There's only so many things they could do with an old aircraft carrier after all. I think they've taken this into consideration and their second aircraft carrier (which is also based on admiral kuznetsov design) would have larger engine compartment, which they could slot in larger, more powerful diesel engine so it can hit 30 knots and keep up with the rest of the battlegroup

>>34407153
There were several valid concerns with US shipyards quality control. The USN gets around it by having an unlimited budget but there was no way the RN could justify what it would cost.

It was also felt that keeping the whole process in the country would have a better effect on the economy than buying off the shelf, which does have some merit.

Given that the QE was never designed to be a Nimitz/Ford, and they ended up with something that's better than anything of a future adversary, I'd say the RNs procurement decision is looking a lot better than the mess the Army has made recently.

>>34406978

It's literally in a drydock right now for a YEAR.

Refit or not, it highlights the problem of blowing your budget on a single ship just to get the reactor.

Critically, this has left them with absolutely zero maritime AEW for over a year. Their entire fleet is essentially blind over the horizon at current.

Single carrier is bad enough. Single carrier with a nuclear vessel's rotation schedule is availability suicide. They've regretted it ever since.

>>34406634
And it's sat in drydock for 75% of its life because they're too poor to properly maintain it.
>>34407088
Being able to afford one and having the technology to make one work properly are two different things.

The US has both. China has the money but not the know-how. Other countries have the know-how but not the money.

>>34406702
>bongs want usable carriers
>shitcan all fixed-wing assets capable of operating off them and drastically slash their rotary wing forces, so they can't even get a full complement of ANYTHING on both carriers simultaneously
>dragging their heels over the F35B because of costs
>usable
tippity toppest of keks bongs

>>34407298
Love to know what bizzaro universe you're living in. Must be smoking some real hard oregano to get there.

>>34407311
They have no operational wings of the F35B. They only possess 8 total, and they're being used as trainers. They're not acquiring more within the next 2 years as per a MoD statement made last month because they have no money.

They decommissioned all their Harriers years ago, and don't have the money to reactivate any as a stopgap while they get their paltry number of F35B's combat worthy.

They have a shortage of transport helicopters and won't or can't buy more. They have enough for ONE ship, but not both.

They have no fixed wing ASW, at all. They have no fixed wing AWACS, at all.

Right now the only combat aviation they have that can launch off the QE are their Apaches, which is certainly not a bad thing, but it's not enough.

I wish we still ruled the waves. Americans should take note of the effect losing your place as a superpower has on a country, it could happen to you one day.

>>34407338
Hilariously inaccurate

>>34407338

They have 10, not 8. Guess thats you confirmed for being a "wiki deep" researcher then.

They've already announced the timing for F-35. QE's first deployment is in the early 2020's, which will have enough for 24 on board at the time, a number which will grow as time goes on after that.

>They have a shortage of transport helicopters and won't or can't buy more.

Kinda funny to mention that when they just got done buying 14 more Chinooks, and have hands down the best helo lift capability in their continent.

>They have no fixed wing ASW, at all.

P-8 arrives in 2019, long before QE sails on deployment. If you mean fixed wing ASW on the ship, then literally no-fucking-body has that any more.

>They have no fixed wing AWACS, at all.

Because it's a retarded idea when you don't have enough ships to ensure they'll always be out there, like the US does with 10 platforms. Look at France. They went with the single carrier route with fixed wing AEW, now they have NOTHING while its in drydock. Their entire fleet is AEW blind because of their over reliance on only a single ship that can launch it.

Having a better platform is fucking useless if it can only be in one place and relies on a single ship which for a fair chunk of every year isn't deployed.

>Right now the only combat aviation they have that can launch off the QE are their Apaches

The fact you think the Apaches are the only platform capable of launching things speaks volumes of how awfully informed you are on this stuff. Also, "right now"? The ships not even in service yet.

>aircraft carrier
>no nuclear reactor

into the trash it goes.

Because it would be a floating nuclear bomb waiting to happen or end up being Chernobyl 2.0 but out in the ocean.

>>34407281
That's literally the reason why thy bought the AC im the first place; to gain knowhow, not only on how to operate an AC, but also on how to build one

>>34408600
>PWRs magically now have positive void coefficient and fail-deadly control measures

>>34406572
How come it doesn't have a nuclear reactor?

because the UK's carriers are intended to operate out of bases in south of England (Portsmouth). the UK's main port for nuclear-fuelled vessels is Faslane, in Scotland, and is specifically set up for subs (the Vanguard SSBNs, and Astute SSNs).

the estimated cost to upgrade Portsmouth's facilities to nuclear capabilities was estimated to be in excess if 1.5 billion GBP (about 2 billion dollars now, close to 2.5 billion when the plans were arranged.), which would have had to come out of the 6 billion budget for the carriers. The reality of course, would've been significantly higher than 1.5 billion, just as the carriers are well over that estimated budget too - but the choice in effect was to have one nuclear-powered carrier, like France and the facilities for refuelling, or two conventional carriers, with one always in service. Which is what was chosen.

There was also significant political clout in opposition to having nuclear refuelling in the south of England. (After all, if there were an accident with the subs, the Scots don't really matter... ), and more than a bit of international diplomacy - particularly docking at Gibraltar, for instance, nuclear-capable submarines invariably cause political shit between Spain and the UK.

It wouldn't be able to dock off of Australia or New Zealand.

>>34410262
>New Zealand.

I keep seeing this get brought up, but honestly who gives a single shit about NZ? Its not a strategic location in the least

>>34408233
>If you mean fixed wing ASW on the ship, then literally no-fucking-body has that any more.
I thought the P-3 Orion was still in widespread service with the US? I know it's generally not part of a carrier's complement but they CAN land and take off from a carrier in a pinch.

>>34410327
Also the EA18 and F15E can do ASW, they have the sensor pods for it.

>>34410327

P-3 are not carrier aircraft.

>>34407088
source on that? Steam turbines are... like 19th century technology, are the Chinese really that far behind?

>>34410341
wat?

>>34406572
you miss spelled "has a ramp"

>>34406717
And Nimitz carriers are always in dock too. Your point being?

>>34413813
There's no point. It does what it was built for and more.
The failure here is to have only one. And the fault there is not really with the French navy, since there were two planned in order to always have one available, but at the end of the cold war, bean counters decided that the navy could do with half of the bare minimum of power projection. It was never a choice between 1 nuclear or 2 conventionnal carriers like the brits had, they chose 2 nuclears and got shafted by politicians.

>>34406572

It was planned for it to have a reactor,but since they ditched the clock tower and the tea factory they opted for a more economic approach

>>34410341
uhh

>>34412454
I don't even know where he pulled that up. China had dozens companies that could produce steam turbine and they did install steam turbine on Liaoning

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/liaoning-engine.htm

>>34406572
The ship has to be restocked and refueled for jets anyway - why not save a lot and stop it spending 75% of it's time in port by also refueling the engine at the same time? Seems like a good place to cut the cost desu

>>34406572
Coastal Defence is not Global.

>>34406634
De Gaulle has two reactors just like the nimitz

However they run on commercial fuel and have to be refueled once every 7 years.

>>34406640
meme, the Nimitz class reactors were also based on nuclear submarines reactors

>>34407153
meme, it's 18 months every 7 years. And nothing else.

>>34407281
meme

As always with french stuff on /k/, the meme is too strong to handle.

>>34407358
t. Coldplay

>>34415261
>meme meme meme
I'm sure you convinced everyone otherwise, tardlet