Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

NobbyFollow

#1 Dec 01 2006 at 2:23 AM Rating: Decent
Though it pales in comparison to the USS Ronald Reagan in size, the new Aircraft Carriers you limey's are building sounds impressive. I can't wait to see these out to sea with us. Though you should have decided to use a nuclear reactor to power this, it makes life a lot better.


I do see you're having some "Size" issues, is that common in the United Kingdom? If so, I should visit sometime. Smiley: lol

Edited, Dec 1st 2006 2:28am by Rimesume
#2 Dec 01 2006 at 6:43 AM Rating: Default
the military is moving away from nuclear power because of the super high cost of operation and maintenance, not to mention if anything breaks, the ship is down untill a part can be manufactured and delivered.

deisle electic is the wave of the future. just like a train engine that uses en electric motor whos power is generated from a large deisle generator. all the new cruise ships are going in this direction.

the advantages. they can repower with ANY engine capable of creating electricity, including a large bank of batteries, like a sub, if necessary. they can install engines that will run on a viraty of fuels as well, like a single engine that will run on gasoline, deisle, or jet fuel(kerosine), bio-deisle, gas-alkahol mixes, with just a minor change to tuning. giving them the ability to refuel just about anywhere from any country.

also giving them the ability to repower at a future date, decades from now, by simply swapping out the generator with what ever is currently available as opposed to maintaining a number of spacific replacement engines built for that spacific ship.

nuclear power is over rated. a fad that has come and is now going. its only practical use now is systems that need a single power supply that will last a long time like space applications with probes or satilites, or for producing ELECTRIC power for comercial use. or bombs.

sooo, you brits need to get with the times.....
#3 Dec 01 2006 at 8:18 AM Rating: Decent
Say what you will SR, but for those of us that have been on a Nuclear Carrier vice a Conventional Carrier know the difference. Also, it takes just about the same amount of time to "tune" a nuke as a conventional. Also a nuke doesn't need anywhere near the same amount of maintenance. The only real argument you have is cost.
#4 Dec 01 2006 at 10:31 AM Rating: Good
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
Paging tarv. Paging tarv.

Where's our token jolly jack tar when you need one?

I personally neither knew nor care about this as it's been scientifically proven that anyone who finds ocean-going military vessels interesting is an cUnt who touches themselves in public places.

I regret taking those photos of HMS Belfast for Kaolian as I gather since DF emailed them to him, his ******* has become shrivelled as liken unto an grain of sand.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#5 Dec 01 2006 at 11:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
teh Nahbtah wrote:
I regret taking those photos of HMS Belfast for Kaolian as I gather since DF emailed them to him, his ******* has become shrivelled as liken unto an grain of sand.


Lies. If this were true you'd be chortling in glee.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 270 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (270)