How will composit superstructure make them a better sub hunter?

The other strange thing about it is it has no funnels/stacks/exhausts anywhere on it so how is it propelled, battery? I did mention this before but no one else seemed to think it was worth comenting:(

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?

This is the best answer to the problem, then the uk doesn’t have to stump up the cash to develope their own site. Even if the US charges twice what it normaly costs to dismantal a boat it would still be far cheaper. Any one reading this thread should google Hanford Nuclear Reservation, very intresting but would you like a site like this anywhere near you?

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.

CVF dosn’t need PAAMS thats why we have type 45, intrestingly know one ever suggests CVF should have self defence against subs, it would be silly to fit sonar and torpedo tubes to deter submarines but a good idea to spend a fortune on outfitting CVF with sea viper! Wonder how much that would push up costs? Subs are dealt with by merlin and type 23, air attack by type 45.
Fixwing AEW is the only way to go, that way means it can only fly of the carrier where as rotorwing can land on anything with a flight deck and is not limited to the carrier, something the RN did whey were getting 20+ harriers on an invincible, basing AEW of another platform.

The C1-3 idea is an extension of the future surface combatent program from 2004 ish? I feel that the idea of what will make a good escort(?) in the 2020 time frame is very difficult to determin, I would guess the RN has an idea what the want but it is changable. Honestly what is a good idea? Exellent asw, land attack, or just gp? There a few years from having to comit to a solid idea that they can develope. May be it will be 10x C1 10xC3 and no C2?