Many people have wondered why the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers do not have nuclear propulsion like the US Navy’s Nimitz class ships. Here we consider the many good reasons why a conventional, although innovative propulsion system was selected instead.
Tactical
Range and Replenishment
The primary advantage of a marine nuclear power plant is the unlimited range and available power it provides the ship. This range and power would be desirable for the QEC, but the costs and other factors largely outweigh these benefit. USN carriers are a few knots faster than the QEC, the speed of the ship can generate more wind over the deck to help heavily laden aircraft take off. This wind is less critical for QEC’s ski-ramp launched VSTOL aircraft.
When on operations, the ship’s air group will consume considerable amounts of aviation fuel. Even if the ship is nuclear-powered, she must be accompanied by a tanker to conduct RAS (Replenishment At Sea) at frequent intervals. If you have to conduct RAS with an auxiliary tanker anyway, it is not a big effort to refuel the ship at the same time. The escorts ships that will nearly always accompany the carrier are also conventionally-powered so nuclear powered carrier does not eliminate the need for RAS. The 4 Tide class tankers that will soon be joining the RFA can replenish the QEC with aviation fuel and diesel simultaneously, using rigs plugged into receiving points on the carrier’s port side. The US Navy has to operate in the Pacific where distances can be huge. Nuclear propulsion may make more sense in the vast Pacific but how frequently will the QEC be deployed over huge distances where there are no refuelling opportunities?
Nuclear reactors cannot be quickly re-started from cold. A careful sequence of procedures is required to start the reactor and the steam plant to prevent heat stress from damaging the system. Since the 1970s when the RN began to move away from steam propulsion, it has enjoyed the benefit of gas turbine and diesel ships that can be started and shut down very quickly. This is a useful tactical advantage allowing quick departure from harbour when needed. It also has a lower manpower requirement as nuclear plants require constant monitoring, even when shut down.
Cats and steam
Except for the newly commissioned USS Gerald R Ford, US Navy carriers use steam-powered catapults to launch aircraft. Nuclear propulsion has the advantage of providing plenty of steam for the catapults. The older generation of RN carriers had steam turbine propulsion and their boilers also provided steam for the catapults. If the QEC had been fitted with catapults and traps, the intention was to adopt the Electro-Magnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) that has been developed in the US for the Ford class carriers. Considerable electrical power is needed but this system does not require steam, another reason that nuclear power is less critical. (Although EMALS offers a great leap in aircraft launching capability, the US Navy is struggling with developmental issues and the USS Ford may not be ready for combat operations until 2022 at the earliest). It is possible the QEC may one day be retrofitted with EMALS (Probably not in the next 20 years) but there is sufficient spare electrical generation capacity already available.
Practical
Building capacity and capability
The only facility in the UK building nuclear-powered vessels is BAE Systems yard at Barrow. (The reactor cores are built by Rolls Royce in Derby) The Barrow site has been running at full capacity for the last 10 years constructing the Astute class attack submarines and that will continue into the future as work starts on the 4 Dreadnought class ballistic missile submarines. Barrow is probably the only UK site with the skills and experience to build an aircraft carrier’s nuclear propulsion section, although their workforce is very much focused on submarines. Even if Barrow could have fitted such work into its schedule, the hull sections containing nuclear power plants would have had to be transported by barge to Rosyth for the assembly – a potentially hazardous journey.
The UK has considerable experience building nuclear submarines but has never constructed a nuclear-powered surface ship. Theoretically, the PWR2 nuclear power plant fitted to the Vanguard and Astute class submarines could have been up-rated and adapted for use in the carrier. It would have required at least three PWR2 plants per ship, each of which generate around 27,500 shaft horse power. (The propulsion system of the QEC, as built today, can generate 100,000 shp). There would still have been considerable cost and complications in adapting the submarine plant and associated gearing and shaft arrangements for the ship. Alternatively, at great expense, an entirely new and more powerful reactor could have been developed specifically for the carriers.
Avoiding the French experience
France completed their single nuclear-powered carrier, the Charles de Gaulle in 2001 but she took more than 11 years to build (QE took 8 years) The de Gaulle was delivered 5 years late, expensive and beset by technical problems with her propulsion. The K15 nuclear reactor design, derived from existing submarines, proved underpowered and inadequate shielding exposed crew members to doses of radiation that exceed regulations. France is already studying options for replacing the de Gaulle, a ship that has spent more time in dock than operational.
Nuclear engineers in short supply
France struggled to build the de Gaulle, despite having a much larger nuclear industry than the UK, more nuclear scientists, engineers and technicians. The design and construction of two British nuclear carriers would probably have required expensively imported nuclear expertise from France or the US. The RN is already hard-pressed to find sufficient qualified personnel to man its existing fleet of 10 nuclear-powered submarines. In the current climate, there would be another struggle to recruit and retain more nuclear watch-keepers for two aircraft carriers.
Attractive conventional options
Despite the unhappy experience with the Type 45 destroyers propulsion, advances in marine engine technology make conventional power attractive. Accumulated experience, extensive testing and the selection of proven low-risk engines will ensure that QEC is very unlikely to have similar problems. The CODLAG (combined diesel-electric and gas turbine) arrangement adopted by the QEC is both efficient, reliable and allows great design flexibility. By using electric motors to drive the propellers, the diesel and gas turbine generators can be placed where convenient, rather than having to sit on the shaft line, as in traditional designs. The gas turbines are actually sited inside the sponsons on the starboard side of the ship with their exhaust uptakes going through the two island structures immediately above. The saves internal volume, allowing for bigger hangars. Nuclear power obviously removes the need for uptakes and funnels entirely but modern gas turbines and electric motors have a very much higher power-to-weight ratio than a heavy nuclear plant with lead shielding and reduction gears. Servicing simple diesel engines is an entirely different prospect to maintaining a nuclear plant. The QE’s gas turbines are also easily accessible and can be replaced with new units in a matter of days if required.
The PWR2 reactor was designed not to need refuelling and to have a life of around 30 years. Unfortunately, HMS Vanguard’s reactor has required refuelling after 22 years service at considerable expense because it appears her PWR2 core H may not last as long as expected. Since the QEC have a design life of up to 50 years, if nuclear-powered they would need a mid-life reactor refuelling refit. Even if a reactor can be made to last for that long, refuelling is a colossally expensive process and could take the carrier out of commission for at 3 years.
Financial
The lifetime cost of a nuclear-powered vessel is much higher than that of a conventionally powered vessel. Initial construction outlay is also greater because of the physical complexity and regulatory framework that the builders would have to work within. The bill for filling up QE with diesel fuel runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds each time, but the total cost of installing, maintaining and disposing of a nuclear power plant over the life of the ship, would far exceed that of the fuel. Disposal of nuclear vessels also presents a significant problem. The US Navy benefits from a dedicated nuclear vessel disposal facility in Puget Sound and the waste is stored away from populated areas in Idaho, deep in the vast land mass of America. Rather embarrassingly, the UK has yet to completely dispose of a single decommissioned nuclear submarine, although tentative steps to start this process have finally been made. Disposal is slow, costly and the storage of nuclear waste is controversial. A nuclear-powered carrier would one day create another expensive decommissioning headache.
Political
Protest magnets
Some nations will not allow a nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed vessel within their territorial waters. This would not be a particular problem but highlights the additional political baggage and sensitivities that come with nuclear vessels. Aircraft carriers are high profile ships and are intended as a tool for trade and diplomacy in a way that secretive nuclear submarines actively avoid. There is a strong anti-nuclear movement and a nuclear-powered QEC would inevitably attract unwanted controversy and protest. In the very unlikely event the ship was sunk or damaged by enemy action or in a serious collision, the presence of a nuclear reactor presents a long-term environmental hazard that could leak radiation into the sea. While this calculated risk makes sense for submarines where there is no alternative source of air-independent propulsion that can provide the required performance, for a surface ship this is an avoidable risk.
Think of the paperwork…
Sensibly, all British nuclear submarines and facilities are subject to strict regulation and inspection. There is no avoiding this complication that would add further manpower, cost and security overheads to an already complicated aircraft carrier programme. Nuclear-powered submarines have to make use of specially prepared “Z berths” when alongside in the UK. These berths have to be certified as safe and secure and the local authority is required to have plans in place in the very unlikely case of a nuclear accident. Although her size prevents her from entering many ports, a nuclear-powered QEC would be further restricted as to where she could dock, both in the UK and abroad. Maintenance of nuclear vessels in the UK can only be conducted at certified “X berths”. Currently, they are only available in Devonport and Faslane. As Portsmouth-based ships, there would be further considerable investment required for nuclear-certified infrastructure at Portsmouth.
The selection of conventional propulsion for the QEC will undoubtedly prove to be the correct choice over the lifetime of the ships and maybe a big factor in ensuring they are affordable to operate and remain in service for many decades. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where a future aircraft carrier CO will be wishing his vessel was nuclear-powered.
Related articles
- Powering the Queen Elizabeth class (Rolls Royce PDF)
- How to Control 50,000 Shaft Horsepower (G Captain)
Thank you. Most interesting.
And there’re no comments from the US about the UK’s engineering masterpiece, even after the meeting with uss gerald ford. A special ally but no recognition of such? This isnt about a new belgian tug lauched. We in the UK are baffled. You think the french will be at your elbow in a serious fight?!
Co-operation, help and support from the US for the UK carrier programme has been immense. see: https://www.navylookout.com/on-board-uss-george-hw-bush-as-she-helps-the-rn-back-into-the-aircraft-carrier-game/
It’s not really that impressive so why do you think you deserve recognition for that ship? We have a ship thats been retired since 2009 (USS Kitty Hawk) that is waiting for the scrap heap that is still superior in its capability of range, speed, and capacity.
Also considering the UK is not a super power and not even much of a world power it seems like a serious waste, you can’t even arm it with it’s capacity of planes.
Good stirring, Ken.
Interesting comment Ken especially your last part. The aircraft that it will have as its main strike weapon is the F35 which is American built so it shows the inefficiency of American industry that it can’t produce the aircraft on time
I agree
We should have stuck to the aircraft (the type that the Americans were unable to build) – The Harrier. US pilots can’t get enough of them!
Yeah but we haven’t got into $9 Trillion of debt or stolen/Conned anyone to get their technology – unlike others. I think you’ll find the UK is still a “World Power” otherwise we wouldn’t be permanent members of the UN Security Council. It’s also worthy to note thst when the US decided to invade Iraq, It was the US Military who requested our SAS to insert behind enemy lines because they had the expertise that the US didn’t have. Also – our F35B’s will be more combat capable than the F35B’s of the USMC due to our engineering prowess in making weapon.systems work for us – hence also why 27% of every F35 will be made in the UK and why UK designed engines will be used in every F35 – not bad for A Country of only 65 million with less than 10% of US Military spending!
I still struggle to see why we sold the harriers off at scrap value before a viable aircraft for our carriers was available ?
To make sure Parliament couldn’t force the Royal navy to continue using them instead of buying the F-35.
True but they had life still and trained personnel, tad unfair but that never comes into it…
All aircraft have a time but I’d like the Harriers to have been given more, I hated it at the time especially without a reasonable replacement .
Britain is only a marginal world power because it has Nukes. You no longer has a an army to speak of. Ditto AF, your navy at times hasn’t even been able to patrol your coastal waters.
That’s what you’re meant to think
But the British army is far more effective, and efficient, than the US army, having been proven so in over 100 years.
Yup and with disgust at times we trained and set the guidelines that the CIA and special forces of us use, mainly because I don’t agree with some of it any more , but that’s a personal thing
Ken, please look north of the Border you have Canada, which it’s monarchy is the Queen, commonwealth institutions align with the U.K. There are many countries that used to belong to the U.K. that will stand by them should anything go wrong. U.K. is definitely a major world player.
Much of the US aircraft carrier designs was invented in the U.K., like the Angled flight deck and the landing system, steam catapults. U.K. is moving on to new practical ways.
Also the carrier relies on less crew because everting is computerised.
Very true, but like many free Americans, no one else matters, land of the free and ALWAYS RIGHT, .,.oh well I’d love to be always right, maybe I’d start a religion, no disrespect to anyone
Land of those who still believe in fairy stories? (Religion)
Or the one ‘I was born this way’…………now that IS a fairy tale – pun intended.
Ok we have a pathetic economy at times and our government are never what the people hope for but despite your fervent backing of the USA whom I prefer to think of as an allied unit I feel we are getting the bum end of the deal just because of power, fair enough power wise, no arguments, but as we also provided a big part of the brains, jointly it seems unfair to be pushed back by political decision making
I the UK isnt much of a power then why does the US keep asking for our assistance for almost every war they have started and lets face it they have pretty much never win a war that we werent part of.
The UK has soft power, which is arguably more powerful.
Never underestimate the British. After all, it’s the country that built the modern world.
Always hope for the best but prepare for the worst
Just like to remember people it was the RN that invented the carrier and it was British pilots that showed the US however to operate the air side of it.
The UK built the first vessel able to launch and recover an aircraft but the US were the first to experiment with the concept of launching aircraft from a ship. By the 1940’s the US Navy (as was the Imperial Japanese Navy) was significantly ahead of the RN when it came to carrier operations both in doctrinal thinking and practically. This was largely to do with needing to operate predominantly in the Pacific ocean meaning ships couldn’t rely on land based air power for defence. Aside from a few minor areas like how to safely operate the Corsair from a carrier the RN benefited from learning from the US when it came to carrier operations. After the war a few British technical innovations were adopted by the US in the form of Steam catapult, angled deck and mirror landing sight. It should be noted that the Americans were the first to use and perfect a catapult system in 1912. I have always pondered why the Americans themselves didn’t make the leap of logic to a steam catapult themselves.
The slow down in development of UK carrier ops between the wars was almost entirely the result of the RAF having been given control of the Navy’s aircraft. This was not rectified until just before WW2. If there is one thing that concerns me about the QE class, it’s their dependence on the RAF for part of their complement of aircraft.
I think the Great Depression of the ’30’s and the increasing cost st of the empire may have played a bigger part than the inter services stupidity.
Iam continually amazed that our politicians inability to forcefully remind service leaders that they work for the UK and not for their service.
Deep and true, forcefully reminding service leaders past yesterday would mean giving them fair pay and reasonable time to remember past the last forced decision, personal view
Sad truth, got a few billion to sort it out? I would change our political situation and give the forces the money they need, meantime the USA have helped a lot with opps overseas and we are a little pushed, mind you still don’t see a reasonable reason to power our new aircraft carrier’s conventionally, doesn’t really add up, but I’m not paying the bill, anymore, (disabled)
At points we have worked together well but the politics have messed much of it up.
“By the 1940’s the US Navy (as was the Imperial Japanese Navy) was significantly ahead of the RN when it came to carrier operations both in doctrinal thinking and practically.”
No. They did it differently. In most respects the UK were way ahead: landing ystem, hurricane bows, armoured, etc, etc. When HMS Victorious was loaned to the USA for Pacific duties, the US men inspected her, paying close attention to the control room. The control room could control land and sea based planes. They copied the idea. Kamikase’s bounced off British carriers.
Bit on the true side! Not missing that without the USA we would be under nazi control, they served for true, just forgot all the middle bits after,
I noticed that they conveniently forgot about the fact that she was 3 years late because of Cameron and Osborne’s interference and that at the moment she is only a massive floating dance floor again because of political sticking of the nose in, and even when she does have aircraft on her she will still have to rely on the RAF so that it looks like she might have enough aircraft to scare a flock of sheep, until then the crew will just have to fly kits and balloons
Ahh why let complete ignorance be a bar to posting a comment eh?
Not sure bout everyone but having a brain injury, I thought the discussion was relatively open, I have served and always put the Queen and country first, always.
Sorry laughing, but in agreement
Great article. Just one minor point – PWR2 as originally designed for V boats was also designed to be refuelled once, upgraded to Core H. It was intended this Core would last the duration of the life of the reactor. Unfortunately the current refuelling being undertaken on Vanguard was never intended.
25 yes max?
Sounds to me like a lot of excuses to justify Govt and MOD pennypinching.
A conventional power system for these carriers behaves our more humble position, compared to US global ambitions.
The British people aren’t as gung-ho for military escapades in faraway places as the MoD, Ministers and amateur navy watchers, are they? Range, manpower and air group flight limitations will also limit politicians attempts at playing games of deputy ‘global policeman’ besides the big Sheriff, USA.
I’ve heard even very patriotic/serving military people saying they’re sick of Britain trying to act like a military superpower, with all this rhetoric about ‘punching above our weight on the world stage’ from Ministers.
We’re a small island with huge problems to fix right here in the UK eg. NHS waiting lists, tuition fees, food banks, public transport etc etc without enriching BAe shareholders further by buying military equipment over budget, years late and which cuts promised features and capability.
So far as I’m concerned, it’s about being a world power with a credible independent conventional deterrent / force projection capability.
This thinking might be unfashionable in cash-strapped Westminster or among the unpatriotic hordes of stateless fifth columnists in our inner cities, but it’s a basic requirement of keeping the UK’s privileged position in international trade and decision making.
Yes
Cecil, the level of funding for the armed forces is decided by the democratically elected government of the day. Funding is proportionate to the role envisioned for the armed forces eg. defence of our home waters, a limited role within NATO or global policeman. I believe their role lies between defence of the UK and NATO participation, taking into account public opinion.
It is clear from the recent election result that the public are concerned about day to day issues such as cost of living, public services and the impact of austerity. Defence issues and foreign military entanglements in unwinnable wars eg. Iraq, Syria and Libya are fairly low in most peoples agendas. We also suffer from blowback to intervention through domestic terrorism. The police and intelligence services rather than the navy are also primarily addressing the issue of terrorism in the UK, where funding is being increased.
Under those circumstances, limited capabilities eg. conventional as opposed to nuclear powered carriers is acceptable. Save the Royal Navy needs to be patriotic and relevant by accounting for public appetite for funding and foreign interventions rather than article after article essentially begging for more money and comparing the UK and the US capabilities. The navy must live within its means, just like everyone else.
‘We also suffer from blowback to intervention through domestic terrorism’
Please point me in the direction of evidence that states this is the case. How does this simplistic cause and effect interpretation explain domestic terrorism in Belgium, Germany and Sweden?
Gladly. Our interventions are one of many reasons for the terrorism we face. One example is the ringleader of the 7/7 bombing in London, who states clearly in his suicide video:
‘Your democratically elected governments continually perpetrate atrocities against my people all over the world. Your support makes you directly responsible. Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation’.
(Muhammad Sadique Khan)
And yet countries that had no part in interventions also suffer from Terrorist attacks so…. clearly it doesn’t matter whether there is an intervention or not.
All murderers attempt to excuse or justify their actions. I don’t buy it, and even if i did it doesn’t explain attacks committed in Sweden, Germany and other non-participants in international military operations.
What does explain the wave of terrorism Europe has faced is a hatred of western culture and values, and a desire to see both an Islamic Empire across the Middle East, North Africa and Asia as well as the Islamification of Western Europe.
The blowing up of embassies and slaughter of tourists in Africa in the late 90s was driven by the independence of East Timor from Indonesia. Several other attacks across the world can be linked to India’s presence in Kashmir. The book burning and murders in 1989 was because of a publication of a novel. The mass shooting of journalists in France in 2015 was because of some cartoons.
In short the only way to stop the attempted mass murder of civilians is not only to leave ISIS to grow and flourish in the Middle East (as well as it’s affiliates in Nigeria, Somalia, The Philippines etc) but to also sacrifice the long list of laws, publications, films, art, cultural practices and anything else that these people deem offensive and unacceptable.
To think we’ll be left alone if we become isolationist is naive and to want to appease them by giving away anything and everything about our society they object to is cultural suicide.
@challeger — Bravo!
To be honest I’ve been waiting, but I have to perhaps blindly hope that our security services are up to the job, I know sleeper cells and lone or seeming lone attackers are there, but that’s everywhere every country
OK I’ll bite. So what have the Philippines and Finand (arguably Spain too) done to incur the Muslim wrath? I am sorry Iqbal, your argument falls at this point.
Muslim wrath… probably not the best choice of words @Phil. The Qur an teaches of a Lesser Jihad, which refers to the compulsory act to fight for their faith if it is being oppressed and they can’t exercise their religious beliefs. Lesser Jihad has to be declared by a religious leader and many other conditions have to be filled, along with self-defence, and that in lesser jihad Muslims cannot use siege methods to bring about victory nor the terrorism tactics seen put into practice in the West- they are not allowed to target non combatants.
IS is not Islam, and their actions are politically and not religiously inspired. They use religion as an excuse to kill.
So, @Phil, don’t believe everything the media tells you.
I think you had better tell those of that faith that what they believe in is wrong then. Bon Chance with that.
And as we all know, that faith believes in an eye for an eye (it’s in the book n’est pas?) due to the caliphate concept. The Pan Am bombing over Lockerbie was revenge for the very tragic mistake of when the Vincennes shot down the Iranian Airbus.
As a Christian now, and understanding the Muslim faith reasonably, the Qur’an is not a war hungry faith, I may not believe it per say but the average Muslim is disgusted with the behaviour of daish / and other extremists
Glad someone here is speaking sense.
We can’t go on spending loads of money we don’t have on boys toys we’ll never use.
Hmmm ok room for thought, just cost via life expectancy of the unit taking its the flagship, fossil fuel doesn’t work without a lot of backup
I’m not a big fan of the chip on the shoulder, but I feel you are on point about national priorities. The US needs to address it’s own, too.
-Ed in Lexington, KY
Ok you may be right but wasting cash on lesser system in the long run costs more, despite the othe hundreds of advantages of a standard type reactor that we fully know everything about,
Worrying lack of security
Big Lizzie is outmanoeuvred by a £300 drone
http://dailym.ai/2fyuoTE
“Outmaneuvered” gotta love that tabloid journalism right there.
A Browning Shot Gun would halt that drone. The operator may have been in breach of evolving regulations on drones. At some point people who don’t act sensibly will lose their toys.
Not entirely sure what the Daily Mail would have the RN do. Ignoring for a moment that she’s still owned by the ACA and flying the blue ensign, what should they have done exactly? Take pot-shots with small arms? Fire up the CWIS? Much ado about nothing…
Oh I want to see that headline! CWIS goes off in port, destroys Drone, causes property improvements worth several thousand pounds in Invergordon! XD
It seems to me that since the Royal Navy is a strong element in our mutual defence alliance with Jolly Old England, that we American ‘colonists’ as they refer to Americans (and Bloody Yanks), we could at least be gracious enough to congratulate our English brothers on their success!! All countries have political stupidity and dumb Interference from not understanding the necessities of a strong Navy. I have spent 20 years in the US Submarine forces in diesel and nuclear vessels. I have Commissioned two submarines (one nuclear) and one submarine tender so I know a bit about such problems.
So, if no-one else will do so, I will say to my Limey friends, CONGRATULATIONS on bringing the “HMS Queen Elizebeth” to life!! Further, to all the wonderful times shown our sailors on a foreign station, I say a hearty HURRAY for the British Navy and all those who serve therein! One of the best times I ever had in service was the two weeks that I spent on the “HMS Fifth of Forth,” in Malta. It was a fun your and I had a great time learning about the British Navy from the inside!!
Respectfully;
MCPO TM (SS), Permanent, CWO-2 (Temporary)
(Master Chief Petty Officer, Torpedoman Submarines, Chief Warrant Officer-2)
Marcus you just called us Limeys but you sign off “Respectfully”, I don’t like it.
Nothing wrong with “Limeys” I have always regarded it as perfectly respectable nickname.
I wonder where that nickname originated? I, for one, am an American Anglophile, and I am pleased beyond words to see the RN re-take it’s rightful place in the global naval pecking order.
I understand that the nickname “Limey” comes from the time when the RN insisted that all it’s sailors drank lime juice on a daily basis. This was done to ensure that they received a daily dose of Vitamins needed to ensure they did not suffer from scurvy which used to be a very serious killer disease in the navy. The irony is that the Americans who coined the nickname thought they were laughing at the RN sailors because it was considered an un manly drink but did not realise that it actually protected the British from a disease that was decimating their own navy.
it was preserved with 15% rum Rose’s where the first to use sugar
Cost
Very good points, however we should aspire to global reach at all times, and thusly this speaks only of a Nation of dwindling importance and self belief. It’s no accident that the Royal Navy’s primacy was also during Britain’s primacy both militarily, politically and economically, as it was for France before us and Spain before that.
Theodore Roosevelt correctly recognised this fact and so went the Great White Fleet and since 1942 America has enjoyed primacy of the seas and oddly enough, economic hegemony.
That’s not to say that these aren’t impressive vessels as they are – but their design intent speaks of a nation that still believes its only political objective is to manage decline.
Nevertheless these represent a powerful tool for a creative and enlightened government to utilise – for not only peacekeeping, warfighting but also, and perhaps most importantly in this connected age, the deliverance of aid to those in need. I look with interest to how these vessels are utilised in a humanitarian capacity, albeit under the aegis (!) of continued US naval primacy.
I am surprised that this article did not discuss the consequences of battle damage occurring to a nuclear powered surface ship. Obviously the risks, of collateral radiation damage, are far greater with a nuclear powered surface ship than a nuclear submarine as the radiation risk, to everyone except the crew, is virtually eliminated in the submarine as it is usually completely submersed in water. However it would usually be expected that a battle damaged carrier will either remain afloat for some time before it sinks or just remain afloat, thus spreading radiation over not just it’s own huge crew but also the rest of it’s accompanying task force. Visions of a floating Chernobyl come to mind!
In the hey-day of the Nimitiz Class this question was nearly always answered by saying that the chances of one of these carriers being hit/damaged was virtually impossible as the numerious sensors and defence weapons then carried by the carrier and it’s escorts would overwhelm any then known method of attack. Even though this hinted at an “Unsinkable Titanic” syndrome it was generally accepted.
However, time has moved on and circumstances are changing. We now face the advent of new, relativly inexpensive, weapons that could well have the chance of doing serious damage to large surface warships. I am not just thinking of future Star Wars type weapons like lazers, rail guns, satellites, swarms of unmanned drones, etc. but of the current range of new, more conventional, weapons that are now on the verge of being introduced like the new ultra quite AIP (Air Independant Propulsion) submarines. accurate long range ballistic anti-ship missiles, etc. etc. My question is does this mean the end of large/small nuclear powered surface warships as we now know them ? Or has the vision of a floating Chernobyl come back to haunt us ?
The hazards of battle damage are made in the article under the point about “protest” and you are right that there is a big environmental risk. But in defence of nuclear carriers, I would suggest that since the reactors are heavily shielded and sit in the bottom of the ship, they would likely be submerged if the carrier took torpedo hits. Alternatively, they might escape major damage if the carrier gets hit by anti-ship missiles which would likely cause damage higher in the ship
The US reactors are not only safe if damaged and/or sunk — they’re designed to be recovered and re-used. Long explanation — bla, bla, bla — do the google thing. There are reasons why there’s NEVER been an American “floating Chernobyl.”
the way to avoid damage is win quickly” by having more fire power you can hopefully get into a position of being able to move your see born assets away rapidly. on paper in WW2 british carriers looked far superior to the US carriers successfully withstanding multiple hits and just sweeping kamikazes off the deck. but closer scrutiny paints a different picture yes the Br ships were tough but they did far less war winning damage than the US carriers. making the US carriers far more decisive, yes we were pushed away from the glory a bit but the analogy is still correct
US engineer here (USN, NAVAIR, civilian). Great article. The impact of available infrastructure and economy of scale is normally overlooked in articles on ship design. That was not done here.
I saw QE in October and was impressed. The hiatus gave the RN an opportunity to take a clean sheet approach and it shows.
It’s odd to me to read these comments. Animosity, politics, etc. What a shame.
It’s a beautiful looking ship. Very impressive. I think it’s a very smart package for the UK considering its roles in the alliances it maintains. I’m sure it’s as good as any ship that the US would create, or better, especially considering the cost, maintenance schedule, etc.
Congrats to everyone who contributed to the success of the HMS Queen Elizabeth. It’s an awesome ship! I hope that the F-35 lives up to its hype and serves you well or I’ll be back on here apologizing.
-Ed in Lexington, KY
I am a veteran of the United States Navy. I was a STS3(SS) on submarines. I served from 1999 to 2003 on the USS Florida SSBN-728 and USS Asheville SSN-758. In my view, ALL seagoing vessels, including civilian cargo ships — especially them, since the present models produce so much pollution — should be nuclear powered. I’m disappointed that Her Majesty’s Royal Navy has chosen to power an aircraft carrier with conventional engines and I hope the US Navy never goes that route.
As to the waste, just dump it on the street in Leeds, no one will notice. lmao just kidding! I’m kidding! 🙂
But I’m serious about powering more ships with nuclear power. People have an irrational fear of it. It is like firearms; if you handle it well, it is reasonably safe and it becomes a powerful tool. We should be reprocessing our nuclear waste, as is done in France.
The only part the US Navy has to bury is the engine compartment of the submarine, the rest can have the classified material removed and then it can be recycled into razor blades or the like. 🙂
One thing the author is wrong about is the idea that nuclear powered vessels necessarily must be powered by steam. It is just as easy for the nuclear heated steam to power an electrical plant, and for all devices on the ship or boat to be powered by electricity. The USS Virginia class nuclear powered fast attack submarines do this.
http://www.public.navy.mil/subfor/underseawarfaremagazine/Issues/Archives/issue_09/power_system.html
–Brian
Just read the article and all the comments. Am respectful of most all of it, and wish most all of you the very best!
To me — it’s the ugliest thing I’ve ever seen (the London office building of carriers) and the article’s slower-is-better assertion is strange at best.
THAT SAID — I’ll always be rooting for the Royal Navy, revere the RN’s history and accomplishments, and personally know of the strength and courage of the soldiers and sailors of the UK. It is the sailors of the Royal Navy who will make that carrier something special — maybe even beautiful.
load of crap ! the RN could deploy anywhere in the world in support of army operations …what are they going to do when they run out of fuel phone the AA !
watch your potty mouth nelson!
i love myself some aircraft-carriers they give me pleasure and im going to buy one
i wank off to them
Hey Guys! This is such a huge issue! I just applied to join the navy and I’m forcing my slaves to join too! us 5 are going to have so much fun riding around on these huge ships! Maybe I’ll stop by Africa and get some more slaves while I’m there. However, slavery is illegal so I don’t know how I’m legally going to get around this. I’m thinking I might purchase an aircraft carrier and just take them by force! It’ll be great. You should all join me!
count me in
Great! I’m very rich so I might be able to afford two carriers, I’ll captain the first and you can captain the second! Down with the blacks!
guys i was just attacked by SKINNY PENIS call the royal navy to come and get him and bring him back to his Nan.
There is a further issue with a nuclear powered carrier, why do you need it? The problem is this, yes it doesn’t need refueling, but its aircraft does. So you still need replenishment ships. Yes it has a high end speed but you can’t use it, or if you do you leave behind your escorts. When I was looking at the issue that the US Navy is having with its new frigate program I came to some interesting conclusions the problem for the US frigate program is the US Carriers and there max speed and the need to escort the Carriers. Any escort will find it difficult to keep up. Let me explain.
First there are two types of frigates, the UK is seeing that now, both types are for escort work but this work is different.
Escort task 1. Escort a battlegroup Carrier, Amphibious or replenishment group.
Escort task 2. Escort a convoy (old word WW2 stuff) such as a convoy for an American division reinforcing NATO and or act independently or with a small surface action group.
Task 2 can be completed by task 1 vessels, but not the other way around.
To complete task 1, the frigate designer is already facing a major problem, how to get 33 knots+ (to escort a nuclear powered carrier) out of the ship and how to squeeze not only the powerplant into a small hull but enough fuel for the range. Also please remember that a a carrier escort will spend much more time sprinting due to carrier launch operations. Immediately you can see the problem, you need a bigger ship to fit the powerplant and fuel requirements. So if you take a theoretical ships speed requirement of say 35 knots the speed to lenght ratio is 1.34 x square root of length, this means that as a starting point you are looking at a frigate of about 680 ft long. Remember this is only the theoretical calculation but you can see the problem, that is one big ship. To over come the length issue you put in a bigger engine, but that again is not linear so to increase the top end speed by say 4 knots you might need to double the engine size.
For the RN,s new Type 26 this works, the length of the ship is 492 ft, giving a theoretical speed of 29knts, which is OK for our new Queen Elizabeth class. The US Navy however has gone to the expense of installing nuclear propulsion in their carriers so its escorts will need to be larger and more expensive to utilise the carrier abilities. God, are they going to eat fuel.
But can they afford to build all tier 1 frigates for a tier 2 task. No, why have a 35 knot frigate for a 25 knot task. The first will cost about 1.5 billion, the second could cost 250 million if we believe the Type 31 concept.
Just by looking at the problem from this aspect alone it can be seen that the US Navy needs two types of frigate a high cost Carrier Battlegroup escort and a low cost Convoy escort general purpose ship.
So if the RN did build a nuclear powered carrier the cost of the escorts would be beyond the ability of the UK to pay for them or you drossel the carriers speed capability, but then why have the expensive powerplant.
So although I did question the lack of nuclear power in the QE’s looking at it in the whole possibly the RN got it right where the US is now running into problems. The only way a nuclear powered aircraft carrier makes sense is if the escorts have the same powerplant to achieve the same speeds but you still need the replenishment ships for aviation fuel and other stuff.
Carrier Nucpwr is about endurance, not speed under way. Endurance, measured in decades between core replacement. Endurance as in more compartments given to spares holds, accomodation and avjet rather than propulsion tankage.
Escort RASing ‘can’ be done at 100ft and 22kts on a v good day but… just being there bottles up the enemy, gives depth of manoeuver and keeps tactical initiative. The english-speaking navies can also do more as integrated fleets and shared resources.
Bunch of stupid excuses, the reason we don’t have a nuclear powered aircraft carrier is political, the cost outweighing the rest is an excuse, par me for political points but the USA wants to have the only …. We thought them the full principals and helped them construct many nuclear systems, but as usual power and money and political points beats the rest Inc economic benefits in many ways, a totally political decision, they control the mass of nuclear weapons etc , odd we have perfectly safe systems running all over the UK and under the waves etc
Having read the total explanations given, I find myself at a loss to disagree, totally reversing my previously long held thoughts, ok nuclear power has major political and financial problems, we as a country simply can’t cover, maybe I just wanted a Great Britain, maybe have to settle for GB keeping it within what’s left, feel like we’re closer to Luxemburg but with less money.
So, to disable the HMS QE, just sink the fuel boats?
hi’ if it was so easy wouldn’t you just sink the main ship. oceans are big.
Brits are a bunch of pussies! Get nukes, idiots! They will depend on the USA carriers to save their ass as usual.
Don’t forget the usa perfected the torpedo which was hopeless before and often missed it’s target….with our brains and friends brawn we are still the strongest navies in the world…