Nuclear Propulsion in Large Carriers?

Your right this is not an aircraft carrier.

NOT aircraft carriers but carry aircraft.

Israeli Sa’ar 5 class corvette (1200 tons).
They even have a hanger.

Ecuadorian Esmeraldas class corvette (685 tons).

Strictly speaking any ship that carries aircraft is an “aircraft carrier”.

They may not a Nimitz class, but one of their primary roles is still to carry aircraft (whether fixed wing or rotary), in my book this makes them Aircraft Carriers.

So this is an aircraft carrier in your mind.

And this:

Lets try some reality here… USS America LHA-6:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lha-6.htm

LHA 6, the first ship of the LHA(R) program, will be able to operate and support a detachment of 20+ Joint Strike Fighters. LHA 6 features several aviation capabilities enhanced beyond previous amphibious assault ships. These include an enlarged hangar deck, realignment and expansion of the aviation maintenance facilities, a significant increase in available stowage for parts and support equipment, and increased aviation fuel capacity.

LHA 6 will be multi-functional and versatile, modifying existing Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) spaces to allow for flexible mission dependent reconfiguration. LHA 6 will also have increased cargo magazine capacity, better survivability, and greater service life margins. LHA 6 will use the same gas turbine propulsion plant, zonal electrical distribution and electric auxiliary systems being designed and built for LHD 8, the final of the Wasp class amphibious assault ships.

The LHA(R) will replace the LHA 1 class of amphibious assault ships, and will have the flexibility to operate in the traditional role as the flagship for an Expeditionary Strike Group as well as potentially playing a key role in the maritime pre-positioning force future (MPF(F)). As the Navy’s Seabasing plan matures, the flexibility to operate with the Expeditionary Strike Group and as part of the MPF(F) will make the LHA(R) a vital cog in the Sea Base. LHA(R) will be a variant of the gas turbine-powered LHD 8.

The one key difference of LHA(R) from LHD 8 is that it will be an aviation-enhanced assault ship tailored for the US Marine Corps future Aviation Combat Element centered on the STOVL F-35B Joint Strike Fighter and the tilt-rotor V-22 Osprey.

Repeat… aviation-enhanced assault ship!

It will still carry a troop load of 1,687 troops (plus 184 surge), and is intended to be part of the amphibious assault team… which means it will be pretty near hostile coasts… which is one very important reason why it doesn’t have nuclear power… there is a much higher possibility of it sustaining serious damage (or being sunk) than for an aircraft carrier (which it decidedly is NOT… your particular obsession notwithstanding).

The US hasn’t built any aircraft carriers of 45,000 tons with gas turbines. The closest carriers that it has EVER built to ~45,000 tons was USS Lexington (CV-2) & USS Saratoga (CV-3) in the 1920s. Neither nuclear power nor gas turbines even existed back then.

The Tarawa, Wasp & America classes of amphibious assault ships ARE NOT AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.

Strictly speaking any ship that carries aircraft is an “aircraft carrier”. All the US Large Deck Amphibs carry large numbers of aircraft, both fixed wing and rotary wing. They also have a secondary role as a Sea Control Carrier. The America is to be more aviation orientated then the other Amphibs.

They may not a Nimitz class, but one of their primary roles is still to carry aircraft (whether fixed wing or rotary), in my book this makes them Aircraft Carriers.

I was hoping for a solid fact base answer to my questions but you have side stepped them all and suggested your inability to answer my questions is because Im not as intelligent as yourself. Yes I’m fully aware of the functions of various types of ship. Are you? The function of America is to transport a large number of aircraft a large distance then deploy them over a period of weeks at high intensity, would not this discribe any carrier?

I have done no such thing. You asked specific questions that in order to answer requires specific data NOT RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC. As I said, you can try your luck at obtaining the data from the USN.

Wow did you read anything I wrote? Nuclear power no ship. Gas turbine ship, what can’t you understand about that. Wops I forgot if its not 102,000 its rubbish, if it has far more aircraft then it can strike below in bad weather then its crap, if it doesn’t have a 6000 man crew its crap, blah blah blah

Have YOU ready what you wrote? NOTHING in what you wrote in any way indicates ‘Nuclear power no ship. Gas turbine ship’.

And I have NEVER said that anything less than a Nimitz class supercarrier is crap.

Once again why has the USN built an aircraft carrier of 45 000 tons with gas turbines when the USN (really you) say anybody doing that is a moron.

Go on dude answer the question!

The US hasn’t built any aircraft carriers of 45,000 tons with gas turbines. The closest carriers that it has EVER built to ~45,000 tons was USS Lexington (CV-2) & USS Saratoga (CV-3) in the 1920s. Neither nuclear power nor gas turbines even existed back then.

The Tarawa, Wasp & America classes of amphibious assault ships ARE NOT AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.

Happy for you to enlighten me about how its not a surface combatent or carrier and so it doesn’t count, just put some detail in. This will be the third time I have asked for some facts so when you give me some sh@t I think we can all sit back and be sure you don’t know what your talking about.

So you REALLY need for me to explain the difference between an aircraft carrier, a surface combatant & an amphibious ship for you?

Thats becouse they have done the research themselves and it wouldn’t stand up to peer scrutney.

You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

Yep but its over 20,000 so by your own statement must be cheaper to run if its nuc, but your about to tell me that amphibs just don’t fall into that bracket, its not a surface combatent or a carrier so its ok to be gas turbine? Dude how does that work, don’t use it so much? If thats your answer then you agree with me. Marine corp so it dosn’t count? Thats what I’m trying to say and your delibratly ignoring YOU said if its over 20,000 its cheaper nuc I’m asking YOU why the USN have made a 45,000 ton assualt CARRIER gas turbine, I don’t think you have an answer to this but if you do, that will be the same answer to why the rest of the world builds conventional carriers.

Do you seriously not know the difference between an aircraft carrier, an amphibious assault ship & a surface combatant &/or how they operate?

Give me some hard facts. Show me how US model nuclear powered steam turbine propulsion with massive crew crew is cheaper than lean man gas electric? Show me how the USN looked world wide at modern systems and rejected them for the system they already have a vested intrest in. Of course this study was carried out by a total independent body! And of course not funded by the USN either!

Feel free to ask the USN yourself. The public reports do not release such details. As is typical, the public normally is only privy to the ‘conclusion report’ & not the ACTUAL full reports themselves.

And again you missed the point. No one in america would say “no more carriers no more fleet we will just have a coast guard” so you can build them as big as you like, with huge crews and large air groups and its all good.

Here we havent had a fleet carrier for 29 years and most of the population see no need for one now, in fact most of the population see no need for the navy full stop. The airforce and army are set against them so to get the two ships they must be a cheap as possible, no cats, no traps, no nuclear, the smallest crews. Before you slag me off again do some research and see things from another countrys view! Please?

Just what does that have to do with the relative merits of nuclear power vs ‘conventional’ propulsion?

Hmm! why is it any thread I find pfcem in there is always a flame war?

In regards to the nuclear issue I would not and do not support Nuclear powered Carriers for the UK until there is a viable long term solution that would work for us here in the United Kingdom. We already have what is it 27 or so submarines rotting away in Rosyth that need to be disposed of. For the US the solution is simple dump them in the desert but here in the UK we don’t have 500 odd square miles where we can just dump them. The same goes with Civilian nuclear power in some respects we have no way to dispose of the waste properly for the long term. Burying it is not a solution it is a dirty and cheap way of hiding the problem.

In regards to France they can do whatever the hell they want in my opinion but hey I’m probably some idiot as well so no worries. If the French want to build another carrier that is nuclear powered then fine they go right ahead I can see the advantages and disadvantages. In their case if I absolutely had to make the decision I would say yes as they already have massive amounts of nuclear waste so adding a bit more I don’t think is a huge problem. I know that is hypocritical due to what I said earlier but I’m not French and they have much more waste to deal with and have better political leadership.

Ah that’s just the point though isn’t it. Rolls Royce already make them which is why France won’t buy them. What can you expect from a country that rejected the de Havilland Beaver then went and built the Broussard to fulfill the same role?

What?

If they designed it with nuclear propulsion in mind, it might have made the French more likely to stay on board. They’d just have to make sure that either nations nuclear reactors could fit into the engine space. They both work in the same way, they can’t be so radically different as to make it impossible.

i think that the new carriers arent going to be nuclear powered is moronic to be quite honest.

I read somewhere something along the lines of “… does not currently provide a reactor large enough to power a vessel of its size”

Do what the usa does – USE TWO SUB REACTORS THAT ROLLS ROYCE ALREADY MAKE!

The longterm costs of having conventional carriers will far FAR outnd built tt aweigh the short term of building them as nuclear powered…

Ah that’s just the point though isn’t it. Rolls Royce already make them which is why France won’t buy them. What can you expect from a country that rejected the de Havilland Beaver then went and built the Broussard to fulfill the same role?

Just want to make it clear, 90inFIRST posted that not me. I am not confused as to what LHA-6 is & is not.

Calm down dude its only a forum. Post edited.

None of which changes the fact that for a >40,000 ton carrier built today, its TLCC will be LOWER if it is nuclear powered vs ‘conventional’ propulsion and that the higher up-front procurement cost of nuclear power vs ‘conventional’ propulsion as a % of total procurement is significantly LESS than in the past (aka nuclear power is not as cost prohibitive as in the past).

Yes you are. LHA-6 is an amphibious assault ship, not an aircraft carrier.

CVF & PA2 are ~65,000 ton aircraft carriers. Yes Britain is selling itself short by making CFV a STOVL rather than CTOL carrier. At least France is not making THAT mistake.

L61 Juan Carlos is a ~27,000 ton amphibious assault ship that like all LHA/LHDs can operate a small airgroup of V/STOVL.

***

Just want to make it clear, 90inFIRST posted that not me. I am not confused as to what LHA-6 is & is not.

Yep but its over 20,000 so by your own statement must be cheaper to run if its nuc, but your about to tell me that amphibs just don’t fall into that bracket, its not a surface combatent or a carrier so its ok to be gas turbine? Dude how does that work, don’t use it so much? If thats your answer then you agree with me. Marine corp so it dosn’t count? Thats what I’m trying to say and your delibratly ignoring YOU said if its over 20,000 its cheaper nuc I’m asking YOU why the USN have made a 45,000 ton assualt CARRIER gas turbine, I don’t think you have an answer to this but if you do, that will be the same answer to why the rest of the world builds conventional carriers.

Give me some hard facts. Show me how US model nuclear powered steam turbine propulsion with massive crew crew is cheaper than lean man gas electric? Show me how the USN looked world wide at modern systems and rejected them for the system they already have a vested intrest in. Of course this study was carried out by a total independent body! And of course not funded by the USN either!

And again you missed the point. No one in america would say “no more carriers no more fleet we will just have a coast guard” so you can build them as big as you like, with huge crews and large air groups and its all good.

Here we havent had a fleet carrier for 29 years and most of the population see no need for one now, in fact most of the population see no need for the navy full stop. The airforce and army are set against them so to get the two ships they must be a cheap as possible, no cats, no traps, no nuclear, the smallest crews. Before you slag me off again do some research and see things from another countrys view! Please?

The title of the thread was aimed at PA2 and should it and other future carriers be nuclear powered.

You can tell us how much it costs to decomision American units but my point was that for the uk we have NO way of getting rid of these boats so we have NO end cost. Untill a disposal system is finalised the cost of nuclear power vessels in the uk is LIMITLESS. Therefore it must be cheaper to build conventional. The fact the USN has a route to dispose of unwanted material is very nice for them but that is of NO value to the RN. I don’t know how I can rephrase this.

As pointed out Brazil has no history of nuclear powered ships, the Italians, Indians, UK and the current Russian carrier are all conventional. France strongly considered a gas turbine powered ship and paid very good money to access the plans and at the moment are undecided what to do. Even countrys that are used to building nuclear powered ship/boats have choosen conventional power plants.

None of which changes the fact that for a >40,000 ton carrier built today, its TLCC will be LOWER if it is nuclear powered vs ‘conventional’ propulsion and that the higher up-front procurement cost of nuclear power vs ‘conventional’ propulsion as a % of total procurement is significantly LESS than in the past (aka nuclear power is not as cost prohibitive as in the past).

45,000 tons, 38 aircraft, 2 gas turbines, electric drive. USS America. Guess I’m confused.

Yes you are. LHA-6 is an amphibious assault ship, not an aircraft carrier.

One could point out that America is not a “proper” carrier but perhaps neither are CVF, Jaun Carlos (bit small I know but still well over 20.000 tons) and cavour all of which should be much cheaper to run as a nuc according to the USN Office of Naval Reactors.

For the uk the higher purchase cost alone made a nuclear CVF a none starter. CVF gas turbine or no CVF, running costs are determined by use, running out of money don’t use it.

CVF & PA2 are ~65,000 ton aircraft carriers. Yes Britain is selling itself short by making CFV a STOVL rather than CTOL carrier. At least France is not making THAT mistake.

L61 Juan Carlos is a ~27,000 ton amphibious assault ship that like all LHA/LHDs can operate a small airgroup of V/STOVL.

***

45,000 tons, 38 aircraft, 2 gas turbines, electric drive. USS America. Guess I’m confused.

I would assume that they just don’t want Nuclear amphibs.

Just want to make it clear, 90inFIRST posted that not me. I am not confused as to what LHA-6 is & is not.

45,000 tons, 38 aircraft, 2 gas turbines, electric drive. USS America. Guess I’m confused.

I would assume that they just don’t want Nuclear amphibs.

[QUOTE=pfcem;1491578]90inFIRST,

No, the USN Office of Naval Reactors is telling you that a >40,000 ton carrier with a service life of 40 years will have lower TLCC than an otherwise identical ‘conventional’ powered carrier. For surface combatants the tonnage break-point for nuclear power having lower TLCC is 21,000 tons (with nuclear power adding ‘just’ $600-700 million to the procurements cost). That TLCC INCLUDES the higher cost of construction (which as a % of the total construction cost is LOWER than it been in the past – for example, the Nimitz class reactors cost ~$330 million each in FY2007 dollars) AND decommissioning.

pfcem, solid reply:)

The title of the thread was aimed at PA2 and should it and other future carriers be nuclear powered.

You can tell us how much it costs to decomision American units but my point was that for the uk we have NO way of getting rid of these boats so we have NO end cost. Untill a disposal system is finalised the cost of nuclear power vessels in the uk is LIMITLESS. Therefore it must be cheaper to build conventional. The fact the USN has a route to dispose of unwanted material is very nice for them but that is of NO value to the RN. I don’t know how I can rephrase this.

As pointed out Brazil has no history of nuclear powered ships, the Italians, Indians, UK and the current Russian carrier are all conventional. France strongly considered a gas turbine powered ship and paid very good money to access the plans and at the moment are undecided what to do. Even countrys that are used to building nuclear powered ship/boats have choosen conventional power plants.

45,000 tons, 38 aircraft, 2 gas turbines, electric drive. USS America. Guess I’m confused.

One could point out that America is not a “proper” carrier but perhaps neither are CVF, Jaun Carlos (bit small I know but still well over 20.000 tons) and cavour all of which should be much cheaper to run as a nuc according to the USN Office of Naval Reactors.

For the uk the higher purchase cost alone made a nuclear CVF a none starter. CVF gas turbine or no CVF, running costs are determined by use, running out of money don’t use it.

Dumped in concrete and stored in the open, not really a permanent solution.

I think that for the US Government, it probably is the permanent solution. They would seem to post a minimal threat in their present storage environment except maybe to birds that decide to nest on the damn things.

Yep… 118 reactor compartments have been removed from their ships and are now stored at Hanford!

Dumped in concrete and stored in the open, not really a permanent solution.

90inFIRST… The USN had not only decommissioned many nuclear powered subs and cruisers, it has scrapped them and dealt with their reactors… WITHOUT dumping them in the ocean.

So the USN knows very well what the cost is for disposal!

http://www.oregon.gov/ENERGY/NUCSAF/subfact.shtml

Since 1986, the U.S. Navy has disposed of reactor compartments from deactivated nuclear-powered submarines at the Hanford Site in Washington state. Oregon takes an active interest in the program because the Navy ships the compartments 310 miles up the Columbia River, which forms Oregon´s northern border. Oregon´s involvement is to assure the safe transport of the reactor compartments.

Beginning in 1999, the Navy also began the disposal at Hanford of reactor compartments from nuclear-powered cruisers. These reductions in the nuclear fleet are the result of the retirement of aging weapon systems and cutbacks in the number of U.S. Navy ships in the post-Cold War era. The reactor compartments are prepared for disposal at the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in Bremerton, Washington. The Navy selected Puget Sound for the job partly because it is near Hanford.

The Hanford Site occupies 586 square miles of south central Washington desert. The reactor compartments are placed in a large open pit in the 200 East area of the Site, which is on a plateau about seven miles from the Columbia River. Eventually, the pit will be covered with dirt.

Through June 2009, 118 reactor compartments have been taken to Hanford. On average, between six and eight shipments had been made each year; however, in recent years, that has dropped to only one or two each year.

The reactor compartments are classified as low-level radioactive waste. They do not contain loose radioactivity or contaminated fluids and their exteriors are not contaminated. The iron and metal alloys within the reactor vessel have become radioactive after years of reactor operations.

Before deciding on Hanford as its disposal site, the Navy considered other U.S. Department of Energy sites. The Navy also considered disposing of the compartments by sinking them in the ocean. After evaluating the costs and environmental impacts of both ocean disposal and land burial, the Navy determined that land burial at Hanford was the preferred option.

Yep… 118 reactor compartments have been removed from their ships and are now stored at Hanford!

90inFIRST,

No, the USN Office of Naval Reactors is telling you that a >40,000 ton carrier with a service life of 40 years will have lower TLCC than an otherwise identical ‘conventional’ powered carrier. For surface combatants the tonnage break-point for nuclear power having lower TLCC is 21,000 tons (with nuclear power adding ‘just’ $600-700 million to the procurements cost). That TLCC INCLUDES the higher cost of construction (which as a % of the total construction cost is LOWER than it been in the past – for example, the Nimitz class reactors cost ~$330 million each in FY2007 dollars) AND decommissioning.

As for replenishment, not having to carry all that fuel to run the carrier frees up LOTS & LOTS of space & weight for more of everything else (such as jet fuel, munitions, et cetera) AND not having to refuel the carrier frees up LOTS & LOSTS of space & weight for everything else on board your replenishment ships (in the case of dedicated oilers, LOTS & LOST of fuel) That means that you can do with fewer replenishement ships OR last longer with a given number of replenishment ships.

I was being flipent about dropping the reactors in the ocean, 🙂 Industry believes storage afloat to be the safest/cheapest way to store the radioactive parts of the boats until they can be dismantaled and the radioactive parts placed in storage. The problem is there will be no storage facility untill 2040 at the earliest.That will make dreadnought 76 years old and still waiting to be dismantaled. pfcem I’m not being rude/flaming but do you really think goverment/mod/rn thought she would still be around the best part of a century after her keel was laid? Did they really factor that into her through life costs? I think the idea in the early sixtys was to dump the reactor at sea or the whole boat, not to spend 100’s of millions storing the thing, and the other 14 waiting for disposal. By 2040 there will be 27 boats waiting. I would have thought dismantaling and storage costs to be a big driver in not having nuclear powered ships and reducing the number of SSN/SSBN in service with the RN. If the Invincibles had been nuclear powered then Invincible herself would be costing a fortune to store at Portsmouth, I did see the figure of $250,000 a day for a CVN just when moored alongside. Laying up a gas turbine ship costs sod all in comparison and thats just what CVF will be doing for quite a lot of their lives, the same way the Invincibles have spent long periods in storage through out their lives.

Who cares what the goverment/mod/rn thought in the 1960s? It is its own fault if it did not put forth the necessary investment to decommission its nucler powered subs. The topic is about Nuclear Propulsion in Large Carriers. More specifically about FUTURE Large Carriers.

The fact is that for a ‘large’ (~40,000 tons or more) carrier built today its TLCC (developement, construction, service AND decommissioning) will be LESS if it is nuclear powered than if ‘conventionally’ powered. Yes it still costs more to build & decommission a nuclear vessel (but as a % of total cost not nearly as significantly as it has been in the past) but the cost saving throughout a 35+ year service life out way that. Add the operational benifits of nuclear power and NOT having a ‘large’ (~40,000 tons or more) carrier nuclear powered is moronic.

Why have the Brazilians been mentioned in this thread? Do they have any plans to commission a carrier during the next decades?

Yes – and it’s been discussed at length on this forum. There’s a currently active thread on it. Do keep up. :p