Can some on please explain to me the pros and cons of a nuclear

Nuclear power adds nearly unlimited range and power supply at the cost of being more complex and expensive.

"Unlimited" range/endurance, removing the need to refuel a massive beast of a ship during UNREP.

EMALS from power generation or steam catapults are made far, far more practical with nuclear propulsion, with CATOBAR being the best and most versatile method of operating aircraft at sea.

Cons would be that they are expensive, require extensive knowledge of nuclear power generation (this can't be overstated) and require lengthy downtime when the reactors need to be maintained/refuelled. France suffers heavily from the CdG being nuclear and the only carrier available to them, as it leaves them with a low availability.

>>35164716
This

The only cons are the expense and when it needs to be refueled it's a huge ass pain.

>>35164663
>The only positive I can see is that I can create enough power for EMALS
I believe the QE class have the potential to power EMALS too since it was an option considered in the dithering over whether to go CATOBAR or STOVL, and is something that it would be possible to convert too at some theoretical point in the future where the cash for such a project magically became available.

It's still fair to say that going the nuclear route makes it somewhat easier to build in a large amount of headroom in power generation capacity to allow for significant upgrades later in a ships life, somethings that's extra relevant these days when the possibility is that we'll be strapping fricking lazors to everything in a few years time.

If properly designed and maintained the cons are very low order problems.

Pro
>> Very Long time needed between refuelings.
>> Basically unlimited ability to desalinate water for the crew.
>> Steam for catapult.
>> More mass capacity for other supplies due to less bunkerage for maneuvering and propulsion.
>> Very efficient in long term in cost savings of fuel when running.
>> Decreased reliance on fuel means quicker theater transitions and real time response to threats or orders.
>> High power density for the next generation of electronic warfare, and weapons.

I'll simplify that for you....
Nuclear powered aircraft carriers can.

>Get to the fight faster.
>Bring more supplies with them.
>Stay on station longer.

Now, here is a good breakdown of the extra shit that can be carried by not using conventional fuel. In most commonly without any specific mission in mind or delegated task a nuclear powered aircraft carrier can carry.

>2x the jet fuel.
>30% more carried ordinance and weapons.
>300k cubic feet of additional of storage.

more than a conventional carrier.

Con

They cost more at outlay.

>>35164663
t. ramp user

File: boom.jpg (168KB, 1535x806px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1535x806px

>>35164663
>pros and cons of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier?
>boom

>>35164663
UNREP for a giant fucking floating airbase is hard enough without fuel. America had coal and oil burning carriers for decades, they switched for good reason.

Also, I'm pretty sure something similar to the rocket equation applies here. For every ton of fuel you ship to Korea, you need to expend fuel to move another ton of dead weight, which requires more fuel etc. Stretched supply lines suck.

>>35164663
Can go a long time without refueling, much longer than any conventional fuel.

>>35166059
Everyone's saying this. How long between refueling and how much down time in Port to refuel?

>>35166076
it's a trade off between refueling at sea or bringing the thing back to port for a year or two. if you only have one carrier, it might be best to opt for refueling. if you have multiple, it's probably best to opt for nuclear.

>>35164663
Power generation on a conventional engine isn't an issue with EMALS.

What Nuclear power really adds though is the generators take up significantly less space than conventional engines and their fuel bowsers - leading to the ship being able to carry more fuel and munitions for its airwing and even its attendant fleet (it wasn't unheard of for the Nimitz class to have a bowser of fuel for the rest of the CBG, thus relieving some stress on the logistics ships).

The GAO did an entire study on this back in 1998: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/ns98001.pdf Though the DoD raised some pretty important reservations regarding the study I think

>DOD did not agree with GAO’s approach of making cost-per-ton comparisons between the two types of carriers currently in the force, believing the conventionally powered carriers reflect 40-year old technologies. DOD believed a more appropriate cost comparison would include pricing conventionally and nuclear-powered platforms of equivalent capabilities. According to DOD, any analysis of platform effectiveness should include mission, threat, and capabilities desired over the life of the ship. Further, it stated the draft report did not adequately address future requirements but relied on historical data and did not account for platform characteristics unrelated to propulsion type. That is, many of the differences may be explained by platform size, age, and onboard systems than by the type of propulsion.

>>35166076
Nimitz classes are refueled once in their service life around the 25 year mark and refueling takes about a year. The USN schedules these so that they're done simultaneously with a mid life modernization, a Refueling and Complex Overhaul, the downside is that when this are happening a ship is out of action for 2-3 years depending on the complexity and how much stuff is being removed, fixed or outright replaced.

>>35164932
reactors never go supercritical ever it's a fucking meme.

>>35166110
a tanker can swim right up to a carrier and refuel it it doesn't even have to port. don't see the great advantage in the nuclear propulsion in that regard.

it can produce a fuckton of electrical power tho once you put railguns and directed energy weapon into play it can become important.

>>35164842
You forgot an interesting one. The USN is currently experimenting with using electricity to turn seawater into jet fuel.

>>35166281
>don't see the great advantage in the nuclear propulsion in that regard.
now you don't have to transport fuel

>>35166288
Or more importantly, the logistics ship can then focus on aviation fuel meaning a longer time on station for the CBG

>>35166288
>>35166299
a carrier gonna have escorts anyhow they don't go around playing sea rambo or really shouldn't some of them will be cargo/supply ships it changes very very little in a war and nothing in peacetime.

>>35164982
Except the planes use huge amounts of fuel, the carrier can't carry enough food for more than two weeks, ordinance is constantly needed during war.

oh and the carriers still have bunkers to carry fuel for their escorts

>>35166328
What? Who's talking about going rambo all alone? I specifically mentioned the logistics ship. Every CBG has at bare minimum one logistics ship attached for at sea resupply. DDGs, CG, etc all have ranges in the thousands of nautical miles. Their fuel is relatively unimportant at sea and as such is a lower priority. Meanwhile, all of them carry helos that require aviation fuel. By taking out yet another consumer of diesel in the carrier, you're enabling the resupply vessel to carry more aviation fuel and more munitions which is a boon to the CBG, not just the carrier itself.

To imply that easing logistic strain "changes very very little in a war and nothing in peacetime" is so absurd that I openly question your intelligence.

>>35166328
It still shrinks the size of the required logistics chain. Carriers use a fuckton of energy to move.

File: nukepol.png (281KB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 2000x2000px

Here's a link to the seawater to fuel via electricity thing, something that is only possible at sea if you have basically free nuclear energy.
https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas

>>35166328
you trucking autist, in hi intensity operations kitty hawk class would last 5 fucking days before it needed to be refueled, that meant you either drag 2 extra oilers with you or escort 2 extra oilers to your location

and it changes a fucking lot, nuclear carriers can generate significant better sortie rates, they much much safer, you basically remove one huge liability in war zone

fucking kill yourself

>>35166400
congrats! you sperg out like a true tumblrina

>>35166431
>I was only PRETENDING to be retarded!

No, for real, just kys.

It depends on your country and your budget.

Countries like the US with that lolwat size budget? Sure, go nuclear. You have the cash to buy enough of them to cover the drawback. Get the advantages.

But that drawback is increased time in refit or refuelling every so often.

For the US that's not a problem. They have 10 of the things, and they have the infrastructure to support such reactors. They can cover that sort of rotation on refits.

But look at France. They are essentially a "part time carrier" navy. Right now they don't even HAVE a carrier, because it's in long refit for refuelling.

Now if something happened at this moment. France would be beyond fucked. Their carrier is in drydock. Their only carrier. And the only ship in the fleet that can launch AEW. They're not just without fixed wing aircraft, they're without any sort of AEW at all right now.

That came about because CdG cost so fucking much to try and be nuclear without the adequate infrastructure or numbers to support. It wasn't even made with a proper carrier reactor, it's just a bunch of sub ones ducktaped together. They didn't have the background to make it properly and it cost them hard. It won't even manage above 27 knots because of it. Even conventional carriers like the Cavour, QE and America classes go faster than that.

To put simply. Nuclear is great, but you need a fuckhuge budget to support it. Thats why most countries use conventional. Because not only is a cheaper, it spends more time at sea, which if you're only gonna have 1-2, is more of an advantage than having a better one that is in drydock.

>>35166514
> it spends more time at sea, which if you're only gonna have 1-2, is more of an advantage than having a better one that is in drydock.

Personally, I'd say you'd need a minimum of 4 carriers if you ever want one at sea on deployment all the time.

>>35166563

Right, but that's a personal opinion based of a rule of thumb, not the actual.

>>35166601
It's what the RN and USN did for decades (and the USN still does) so that's what I'm basing it off of. One for maintenance, one being made ready for deployment, one for training and qualifications, one for deployment and then rotate. Perhaps 'personally' was a poor choice of words.

>>35166439
you fucking gen z kids have the worst case of speshul snowflake syndrom.
>hurr if you disagree with me just kys
it gets old in fact it got old years ago.

>>35164663

Not really casting judgement on either method of getting a ship around, but with specific reference to the UK its kinda easy to see why they chose a more conventional system.

Pros of nuclear power:
>Smaller and more efficient generation system
>Far easier to implement CATOBAR either conventionally or with EMALS
>Range and endurance improvements

Cons:
>Expensive
>Requires some skills/technological work-up to build a nuclear carrier in the first place
>Requires some hefty investment in port-side infrastructure and materials handling for when you do need to refuel
>Refit cycles take longer to complete. A pain in the ass when you only have two of the class to play with.
>Concerns with damage control. QE Class have a relatively small compliment to handle that already, let alone where nuclear substances may be involved.

Whilst a nuclear powered carrier would obviously be preferable assuming it didn't share the CdG's problems, It just generally makes more pragmatic sense for the UK to use their existing infrastructure, trained skills and knowledge bases rather than put already limited funding in what would be a completely new area for them. They're never going to have the economy of scale that would justify the investment or allow it to pay for itself as more hulls rolled off the line.

File: RussianShip.jpg (63KB, 1200x848px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x848px

>>35164663
Less of this.

>>35166623
go take your meds grampa
your time is over

>>35166616

That they did and that's what in part the rule comes from, but to say you need 4 carriers to maintain one always at see is wrong.

>>35166642
that thing is burning asphalt tho not diesel.

>>35166623
No, really - kys.

I respect that you're switching things up moving from:
>I was just PRETENDING to be retarded
to
>hurrr millenials hurrr gen z

thing. I get it, really, I do. I respect your commitment to getting the delicious (You)'s, but I'm being serious - kys.

>>35166685
I would love to read about the Kuznetsov's powerplant, got any links?

>>35166768
>I was just PRETENDING to be retarded
that is the shit you made up out of nowhere
>to
no to i never changed my stance on anything
>hurrr millenials hurrr gen z
just you little kids of gen z
millenials may be faggots and all but were never this insufferable

File: mfw.jpg (129KB, 324x325px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 324x325px

>>35166857
>I would love to read about the Kuznetsov's powerplant
So would the Kuznetsov's crew

>>35166857
it used to burn the dead bodies and possibly souls of the so called enemies of the state. but after the collapse of the soviet union they decided shit does not fly anymore so they feed it with the stuff that they scrape off the floor of the oil refineries.

>>35164726
Is Ford designed to be refueled, or does it have a more-enriched 40-year supply like the VAs?

File: 1429622541227.png (177KB, 310x308px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 310x308px

>>35164721
>France doesn't have three aircraft carriers called Liberté, Égalité and Fraternité
Give me one reason, ONE FUCKING REASON, why this isn't the case.

File: 1376682754143.jpg (27KB, 350x468px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x468px

>>35167183

>>35167671
No money for them
No need for them

>>35166328
At one point we had nuclear cruisers. At least once or twice, we gave the Soviets severe heartburn by having a CVN and her CGN escorts do a speed run from one theater to another, and immediately begin operations upon arrival. That's something that conventional ships just can't do.

>>35166238
That's still a good system.

>>35167642
I'm pretty sure they all have "refueling" capability, but it would be silly not to use the more efficient power plant.

>>35166514
France's doesn't have a part time carrier navy. They have a massive floating showroom that they can use to tour the world and sell obsolete fighter craft and missile systems to third world dictators..

File: 1467868254000.png (142KB, 292x257px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 292x257px

>>35167183

File: 1494132959350.gif (443KB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

443KB, 360x270px

>>35167183

>>35166396
>https://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2012/fueling-the-fleet-navy-looks-to-the-seas
awesome

>>35164663
Cannot traverse the Suez Canal or dock in New Zealand or several other nations.

>>35166642
>Kuznetsov
thats a fake image by the way

https://www.reddit.com/r/CatastrophicFailure/comments/6pvq9y/aerial_view_of_the_deepwater_horizon_disaster/

>>35168957
docking is for fags

>>35167671
Because they spent all their money on gibs for turb worlders.

With e-diesel, a nuclear carrier can produce jet fuel from sea water.

File: British-POW-_3101443c.jpg (26KB, 460x287px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 460x287px

>>35164663
>the prince of wales
>the POW
top kek

>>35166642
>le Russia's military is shit and outdated meme
They don't field the good stuff because the Russkies don't feel the need to reveal their true capabilities to rival powers unless they absolutely have to.

>>35169355
>were only pretending to be retarded

>>35164932
Fuck off idiot.

File: disgusting.jpg (47KB, 450x266px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 450x266px

>>35169355
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/your-aircraft-carrier-is-a-piece-of-crap-f3f52d299588

>Almost 2,000 men. Twenty-five latrines. Do the math. Training and morale are so poor that in 2009 Admiral Kuznetsov sailors apparently botched an at-sea refueling, spilling hundreds of tons of fuel into the Irish Sea, pictured at left.

War is boring may be shit sometimes but i imagine theyre right about this.

File: 1476422048102.jpg (9KB, 189x292px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 189x292px

>>35167183
Mother fucking drum rimshot.

File: The french would rather die than fight.jpg (316KB, 2024x1751px) Image search: [Google]

316KB, 2024x1751px

>>35167671
>ONE FUCKING REASON

>>35166328
Jesus Christ, use some punctuation.

>>35164663
>Can some on please explain to me the pros
(Effectively) infinite jet fuel from sea water.
www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA539765 (it is a download)

>>35166258
reactors go super-critical all the time. the word your uneducated self is looking for is "prompt critical" which is very possible if they are operated incorrectly.

>>35170774
Don't tell me we use 50's tier active coolant memes on carrier. Please say it aint so.

It's a fucking tragedy how the RN has fallen from one of the greatest innovators on the seas to... whatever they are now.

Americunts might have written the book on how to use carriers but the carrier in its modern form as an angled deck, catapult assisted, arrested landing design was a wholly British invention.

Pathetic, they should have nationalized the shipyards.

>>35172338
double island design is the new hotness
automatic munitions handling

>>35164726
The cons include that if its escorts are not nuclear powered it still needs to be tied to their refuelling and resupply needs, which defeats the purpose of it being nuclear powered for the most part.

>>35172338
>whatever they are now.
The cuck brigade with heisenberg-samson's letter.

>>35172390
What if we had more non-carriers than carriers, and we stationed them at ports along the way and just hot-swapped them?

>which defeats the purpose of it being nuclear powered for the most part.
Not really...

>>35172390
We should have Iowa-sized nuclear powered guided missile battleships by now.

>tfw there won't be a real life macross missile massacre in your lifetime.

>>35172437
Nuclear powered carriers were designed originally as part of a broader push in the cold war for a nuclear powered fleet that could operate independently for extended periods of time in times of conflict. A previous anon has already mentioned the US Navy trolling the Soviets by dashing around with nuclear powered escorts. Without its escorts having the same flexibility the carrier is restricted by its escorts' need to refuel and supply. Not saying that makes it entirely worthless to maintain nuclear powered carriers but it does neuter a lot of the benefits of having them.

>>35172575
The biggest benefit is that they're sanic fast. They new Ford class can break 40 knots, I've been told. The real number is classified, of course.

The Big E does 45knts easily.

Actually, I'm reasonably certain these carriers can rupture their drive shafts if they go all out, so whatever speed they can hit before the torque turns the shaft into a pretzel is their "maximum speed." It probably only exists on paper.

>>35172695
They're fast but they're hindered by their slower and less flexible conventionally powered escorts. Thus their nuclear powered capability is a bit pointless in a majority of cases.

>>35172719
What if we beamed the cuckboats power from the carrier?
What if we put two reactors onto the carriers?

>>35167671

Lateef, Enomwoyi and Fakhir

>>35170774
Still wont cause a literal nuclear explosion. Just a big toxic boom

>>35172959
>big toxic boom
A mildly toxic pop at best.

>>35164663
I looked and no one made mention of speed. Because of the huge amounts of energy produced by the reactors Nuclear ships can fit truely massive engines, and the Nimitz and now Ford class supercarriers are the fastest capital ships in the world. Top speed is technically classified but they can do better than 50 knots and some claim as much as 55.

Meaning if they are need on the other side of the world they can get there very quickly in a pinch and if an are is become hot they can clear out fast enough that nothing on the surface or below it can catch them.

>>35173129
You didn't look very hard.

File: new boilers for Kuz.jpg (549KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

549KB, 2048x1152px

>>35166685
>>35166857
It burns bunker fuel but doesn't fully ignite in the firebox and so exhausts out a heavy air-fuel mixture. They finally included overdue boiler replacements in the current refit.

>>35172338

But why? The QEC is full of inventive-wonderness.

>>35173129
>Top speed is technically classified but they can do better than 50 knots and some claim as much as 55.
Suuuuuure thing buddy. A 100k tons ship absolutely not designed for high speeds doing 55 knots... aka 63 mph. aka 101kmh.

If they can top 35 knots it will already be quite a miracle.
top speed is listed "in excess of 30 knots". Real max top speed is probably around 32/33, which would be excellent for such a big vessel.

in b4
>"reeeee ur an idiot reeee muh sooper sikrit degnologee u dont know about but I do cuz my dad works at Lockheed Martnintendo reeeeee"

>>35167183
Not bad.

Better for the environment.

>>35173582
Enterprise can do 43 theoretically. I'm not sure it's ever been tried, because it'll start shaking and making unsettling noises at around 37

The question isn't if it's possible, it's "do you want to have to explain why you broke a 13 billion dollar ship?"

55 knots... not happening.

>>35172390
I got a solution
NUCLEAR POWERED FIGHTER JETS AND HELIS

>>35166363
Yeah, but the carrier does not need to carry it's OWN fuel (although it does of course, but not literal fucktons of liquid that would be constantly being consumed and replenished, drastically altering balance and draft.)
Plus if you where going to be ballsy enough to strike a carrier, mid-refueling seems like a prime time.

>>35166363
>oh and the carriers still have bunkers to carry fuel for their escorts

Pretty sure it isn't standard practice for the carrier to act as a replenishment ship.

>>35172695
>can break 40 knots
>>35172695
>The Big E does 45knts easily.

This is bullshit

File: Flat Bottomed Girls.jpg (68KB, 736x491px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 736x491px

>>35164982
>America had coal and oil burning carriers for decades, they switched for good reason.

You realise the world has moved on? There's literally no valid reason not to be using marine turbines.

MTU's are cheaper, safer, weigh less, take up less space, are easier to maintain, can scale power far faster, don't require days of bringing online if the ship has been in reserve. They dramatically simplify damage control and won't SCRAM in combat conditions. They have no port restrictions, they can meet the power requirement's of EMALS, Railguns, radars, whatever you need. Oh, and they don't have retarded crew requirements.

Nuclear warships have the supposed advantage of fewer logistics, but in reality, this means you send across one hose during UNREP as opposed to two. And she logistics ships are still carrying that fuel.

Nuclear carriers can't sustain their top speed in relevant situations due to the limits of their escorts. And even in tactical situations it takes far longer to bring more power online than it foes with MTU's.

The RN looked at nuclear power very carefully, and it had no real benefit, even factoring in the lifetime cost of fuel, a nuclear reactor and supporting crew would cost more over the 50-year life of the carriers.

Unless you are in a submarine there's no need for a reactor.

But it's not like anyone expects the US to make effective cost decisions.

>>35164932
the only thing a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb have in common is that they both make use of fissile material. a nuclear reactor is not a nuclear bomb just because it has the word nuclear in it. a wrench isn't an explosive just because it shares the same metal used in explosives.

stop using hollywood as your source.

>>35173787
>94,781 tonnes of boat at 43 knots

some quick math gives me 11,595,106,266 joules of kinetic energy.

>>35174945
>94,781 tonnes of boat at 43 knots
>some quick math gives me 11,595,106,266 joules of kinetic energy.
Or about the power of a dozen Nuggets am I right ?

>>35175219
Actually, about 2.77 tonnes of TNT, but what's more impressive is the 94,000 tonne boat moving at nearly 50 mph.

File: bF6Cp_d.jpg (16KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 500x375px

>>35166281
>>35166328
You've already betrayed your extreme ignorance on the subject. If you're genuinely interested in the advantages of nuclear power, stop talking and listen to the adults

>>35164932
>>35166258
There is not even remotely enough Uranium 235 in Nuclear fuel rods to cause a nuclear explosion and there is zero plutonium in nuclear fuel.

>>35174820
Which is why China is planning to build nuclear carriers right (and mount EMALS on it)?

And the Nimitz has far greater power production than the QE and wouldn't be able to support EMALS.

>>35175753
>Which is why China is planning to build nuclear carriers right (and mount EMALS on it)?

Because that suits the China's with all the prestige that a nuclear carrier comes with it.

>And the Nimitz has far greater power production than the QE and wouldn't be able to support EMALS.

No, the QE has the capacity for EMALS and/or space for additional turbines and gensets.

>>35164663
Less space for fuel means more space for everything else.

>>35175318
Impressive indeed. You're cool anon.

>>35164842
>ery efficient in long term in cost savings of fuel when running.
Wrong

>>35172695
Unless a moron designed them the reduction gears and the shafts can handle the output of the turbine under any circumstance. In fact they can handle going crash astern which if far more instantanious torque than any direct ahead will generate. Speed will be limited by hydrodynamic forces. A thousand foot waterline will start requiring a doubling of energy for every extra knot at around 50 knots. I could waste a week and model the thing but a bit of a waste of time. The enterprise crossed from charelston to gibralter in 47 hours as the carrier with the longest waterline it was the fastest.

>>35166238
Actually its a minimum of 50 months of shipyard time, as done by the fastest carrier to complete it. But, yeah, its all done together to save time and money. The refuel I think only took us 6-7 months, IIRC, its the testing of the plants that take for-fucking-ever.

>>35175753
QE was designed from the outset to have the option of using EMALS, and there would be no need to alter the power plant due to the fact they have massive headroom already.

>>35175954
>Less space for fuel means more space for everything else.

I don't think you realise how much space nuclear reactors and the 500 or so crew needed to operate it take up.

>>35173800
You just gave me an erection.

>>35170979

Not today Chink.

Go get your NNPI somewhere else.

>>35177686

>500 crew
>frowningsubmariners.jpeg