buffnut453
Captain
If Britain can produce organic nuclear-powered submarines, then putting a nuke powerplant in a surface vessel can't be too far of a stretch...or am I missing something?
Why France?
- Thread starter silence
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Sending armed aircraft over another countries territory without getting their approval beforehand is a act of war.
I don't know enough about it. I do know that you'd have to trawl through endless papers (defence reviews etc) to get to the real reason that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be conventionally powered, if it's even in the public domain.
I'm going to guess that the reason our submarines are nuclear powered has something to do with reducing noise, or "quietening" as submariners like to call It, as well as all the other obvious advantages.
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
Angels one-five
Airman 1st Class
I think the non-nuclear choice was primarily driven by cost. I seem to recall a Staff College lecture many moons ago giving the crossover point between the cost of installing a nuclear reactor in a warship against conventional fuel usage. Break even was measured in decades...!
renegate326
Airman
- 34
- Nov 16, 2013
It's not just the cost either. There are ethical issues involved. These two are the principal reasons why the RN's new Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be conventionally powered.
I hope we can do better on budget and timing than the French managed with Richelieu.......ooops!.... Charles de Gaulle. I wouldn't bet the farm on it though
Steve
You are already doing better mate oh sorry in your dreams perhaps . Its wake up time !
Britain will this week reveal another substantial increase in the cost of building its two new aircraft carriers, declaring that total funding for the programme will rise by another £800m to £6.2bn.
The revised price tag for the 65,000 ton carriers – which will not operate until the end of this decade – will alarm some opposition MPs. When the last Labour government gave the green light to build the ships in 2007, it set the projected cost at £3.5bn. That figure is now close to being doubled.
my god we still have at least 8 years to go so what do you think the final figure would be ? more than a Gerald Ford class ?
SOURCE: FT 3.11.2013..
I am still waiting for a response. Oh wait, I doubt I will get because my post told it like it is.
renegate326
Airman
- 34
- Nov 16, 2013
Really, so maybe you can enlighten me why both Americans and Russians ( TU-144 was a huge failure) have failed to build a Concorde back in 1960's ? lack of technology or know to do so ? they were competing with each other for the moon, but only the tiny little BAC/SUD AVIATION has managed to achieve it and they got it at the first time !! no modification or improvement was needed for the next 27 years ! for many the greatest engineering feat ever ,even Neil Armstrong said that putting Concorde in service was comparable with moon landing in terms of science and engineering achievement .
By the way,the Russians have indeed tried to build nuclear carriers in 1970's similar to the Nimitz class but they failed ! I red a detailed report about that years ago. my opinion is that even if you have the know how you might not be able to build it .. Again, thats me probably I am naive !
So we'll still hopefully get two larger carriers, each at the price of your one
I wouldn't shout too loudly about the C de G. I gather that the government is being sued by crew members exposed to radiation!
From a US source.
"The cause of the problems can be traced to the decision to install nuclear reactors designed for French submarines, instead of spending more money and designing reactors specifically for the carrier. Construction started and stopped several times because to cuts to the defense budget and when construction did resume, there was enormous pressure on the builders to get on with it quickly, and cheaply, before the project was killed. The result was a carrier with a lot of expensive problems."
Cheers
Steve
Last edited:
buffnut453
Captain
You're not winning any friends here, I'm afraid. Not sure what Concorde has to do with nuclear-powered vessels...
You might want to dial back the aggression and play nice - the mods don't put up with this sort of crap for long.
Do you really think that a country that has built the fastest aircraft in the world, put men on the moon and leads the world in military technology could not build a concorde type aircraft?
Really?
You really are dellusional.
Its called priorities my friend.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The U.S. chose not to participate in the SST style aircraft because the emissions at that altitude degrades the ozone layer.
Not sure if you've noticed lately, but the Concorde (SSTs) are retired. And if speed and altude in a powered aircraft is a measure of prowess, then let's discuss the Archangel/SR-71...if absolute speed and altitude in an aircraft is to be measured, then let's discuss the Space Shuttle.
Not sure if you've noticed lately, but the Concorde (SSTs) are retired. And if speed and altude in a powered aircraft is a measure of prowess, then let's discuss the Archangel/SR-71...if absolute speed and altitude in an aircraft is to be measured, then let's discuss the Space Shuttle.
Is that the real reason the US aviation didn't get behind the SST and develop it.
Or did they see greater potential profit in the big aircraft just a few years away (747), prestige is nice, but the airliners are in business to make MONEY.
Did the Concorde SST ever operate at a profit ?
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
The SST was planned to be developed and backed by a congressional motion, but political pressure brought on by eco-whiners in the 60's soon killed that idea.
The 747 was developed for a USAF contract, but the C-5 beat Boeing's bid. The C-5 winning the contract was probably one of the greatest strokes of luck for an aircraft manufacturer ever.
The 747 was developed for a USAF contract, but the C-5 beat Boeing's bid. The C-5 winning the contract was probably one of the greatest strokes of luck for an aircraft manufacturer ever.
buffnut453
Captain
Never knew that...most interesting!
Whilst this is true the passenger version was also being pursued at the same time. Pan Am (remember them!) wanted an aircraft at least twice the size of the 707. We shouldn't confuse timelines here either. The reason that the 747 was, and is, so easily converted to a transport aircraft has nothing to do with the original USAF specification but rather that Boeing expected the passenger version to be rendered redundant by the advent of SSTs. Of course things didn't work out that way and wide bodied passenger aircraft proved to be the way of the future. It is ultimately a question of economics, but I was sad to see Concorde go. It is not often that human kind takes a step backwards in technological terms, but it did when it gave up supersonic passenger travel.
An old friend of mine once took a Concorde flight across the Atlantic, charging the fare to the company he worked for. They didn't buy it and he had to stump up the difference between a Concorde fare and a standard sub-sonic fare. It was a substantial sum but he always reckoned that it was worth it
Cheers
Steve
FalkeEins
Senior Airman
wow, this thread is way off topic .. but lets just ask renegate326 how many Rafales have been sold world-wide as at time of writing......?
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"...... but lets just ask renegate326 how many Rafales have been sold world-wide as at time of writing......?"
And while we're at it FalkeEins, lets ask where they're going to be built ...... hint .... India ... AFAIK
And while we're at it FalkeEins, lets ask where they're going to be built ...... hint .... India ... AFAIK
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Why France?
No offense to France, but why was France included as a fourth power in post-WW2 Europe? Why not Poland? Or Norway? Or Australia?
Why indeed ...?
No offense to France, but why was France included as a fourth power in post-WW2 Europe? Why not Poland? Or Norway? Or Australia?
Why indeed ...?
DonL
Banned
I think many reasons, but the main reason was the old Entente from WWI and the mentioned reason to have a fourth power, to brake the russian at it's ambition.
Users who are viewing this thread
Similar threads
