The British are building two non-nuclear powered carriers

TreeFarmer · Heavy Crude Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 352

The British are building two non-nuclear powered carriers because conventional fuels are cheaper than nuclear. I wonder if they are beginning to rethink that assumption?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth_class_aircraft_carrier

TF

emersonbiggins

I see that decision was made as long ago as 1999, back when the North Sea was pumping like mad, and oil was $10 a barrel.

Yep, ya gotta wonder...
_________________
"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."

George Carlin

energycity · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 22, 2008 Posts: 126

TreeFarmer · Heavy Crude Joined: Jun 26, 2007 Posts: 352

I know there is a lot to be said for building your own but why go through all the design steps when you are only going to build two of them (maybe three if the French buy one)? They could have purchased two using the new U.S. design albiet with some modifications for the roles the British envision for their carriers. Doing that would have lowered everyone's cost due to economies of scale.

TF

SoylentGreen · Heavy Crude Joined: May 25, 2008 Posts: 168

these new british carriers are about 20% smaller than a US Super carrier. The french have a new gas turbine super carrier under construction right now. There is another plan to build a slightly smaller carrier for both the french and the british. All to be built around the new F-35.
With the latest Russian/Indian supersonic anti ship missles which makes radical manouvers just prior to striking, carriers are very vunerable unless they stay way off the coast.The latest attack subs also pose serious threats.
They will be used in the middle east in the near future when the resource war escilates.

Cashmere · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Mar 27, 2008 Posts: 1971

Military vessels get fueled first - they'll have fuel for another 50 years, no problem.
_________________
Massive Human Dieoff must occur as a result of Peak Oil. Many more than half will die. It will occur everywhere, including where you live. If you fail to recognize this, then your odds of living move toward the "going to die" group.

energycity · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 22, 2008 Posts: 126

It bothers me that the European Union has a huge defence budget (second biggest in the world I believe) and yet you would hardly know it because of the inefficiencies of duplication and non compatibility. Is there no way the EU could have a single armed services (with local defence forces for each country)?

Alternatively perhaps the good taxpayers of the EU would like to provide funding for France, UK and Italy to do the job?

SoylentGreen · Heavy Crude Joined: May 25, 2008 Posts: 168

The US Navy carrier force continues to get smaller.The US had 14 around the War to get Iraq out of Kuwait to 12 through just recently, now they are probably only going to have 10. The EU is having to step up theyre defence due to the US cutback in Euro defence spending.

Denny

These monster aircraft carriers seem like a big waste of resources. Obviously necessary if the Russians and Chinese and Japancese have them, but we in NATO don't have to have hihg numbers just out of pride.

Why can't the U.K., France and the U.S. just get together and share the costs under NATO, and use standardized designs. And, what about other big European countries, like Spain, Italy, Germany? They shuld be chipping in too. Do they all have to maintain such expensive military equipment or is just due to their empires abroad that U.K. and France are into this large naval brigade?

ivanillich · Tar Sands Joined: May 27, 2007 Posts: 34

My favorite analysis of the uselessness of carrier groups in a war in the ME (read war with Iran). The War Nerd, "Take America's Navy Battle Group....Please!
An excerpt:

dorlomin · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Aug 05, 2007 Posts: 1151

"In times of peace prepair for war"

It is better to be building carriers when the you have some money than need them when you dont have any left. Who can say where tomorrows conflict will come? The coast of Angola, the Torres straight, perhaps an oil find off of the Falklands? If you can guarentee me they wont be needed then they are a white elephant.

wisconsin_cur

Tyler_JC

Interesting reactions...

Would European citizens be willing to give up their national sovereignty in order to allow this European Army to take over?

To whom would this army to be accountable? The High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy? Laughing

I don't even remember the name of that guy and I took a class on this stuff a few months ago...

I just don't see Europe turning into a single country in the near future. The Iraq War made this painfully clear. Would the European Army side with the Belgian/French/Germans or the Dutch/English/Polish/Spanish?

Would a resolution have to be sent to each member state and approved by the voters or the various parliaments?

I shudder to think about the time lapse of that sort of arrangement.

One of the major criticisms of EU policy is that they can't come up with a unified military policy.

Sure, it would be cheaper to have a single army but the loss of sovereignty would be intolerable to the vast majority of voters.

The British in particular would revolt. And beef up their own army to give the finger to Europe. Perhaps buy a few carriers...

I think aircraft carriers are pretty high on the priority list for fuel.

Although it might seem like a waste of oil, the British don't have a large domestic supply of uranium. It might be easier to get oil than uranium in a hurry if you need to fuel up the air craft carrier during war time.
_________________
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."

cube · Fusion Joined: Mar 12, 2005 Posts: 3823

energycity · Heavy Crude Joined: Apr 22, 2008 Posts: 126

Part of the reason for being a united Europe is that we face many of the same international problems and these are much better tackled by all of Europe together. We live in dangerous times; energy security and food security are very serious worries. Maintaining a modern flexible defence force is extremely expensive. It makes sense to do it centrally. There are a number of European countries that spend very little on defence and assume they can shelter under the umbrella of those that do. This is probably a realistic assumption for now but where would Europe be if the UK, France and Italy decided to save money and give up spending money on defence? (answer = extremely vulnerable) It's time the EU moved forward on this.