Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FERdeBOER
I'm not correcting, I'm just asking: are not the nuclear carriers bigger than conventional ones?
If so, the engine power of the nuclear reactor should be bigger than conventional to move them at same speed.
|
I was talking about the case when they were same or very similar type of carrier, older units with conventional and newer ones with nuclear (was that te case?). People tend think (after reading Clancy's books) that nuclear carriers are capable of much higher speeds, some people claim 37 some even over 40kts "in emergency". But they all forget that those carriers shared the same steam turbines and all other machinery, only the steam generators were different (conventional or nuclear). The turbines had the same maximum power output so max speed was in fact the same.... Nuclear not faster than conventional ones...
But what was true that nuclear ones can accelerate much faster from low to high speed (leaving all other conventional ships in group behind, that could make false impression that they are much faster - even though fast conventional ships eventually speeded up and could even overtake the carrier at max) and can keep those max speed for long periods without worring for fuel efficiency.
Where was am reading about this... :hmm: same site as "russian post-wwII torpedos" page... NavWeaps... O here it is:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/index_tech.htm
search for 'Speed Thrills III - Max speed of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers"
P.S. I have read that again and indeed - seems that some CVNs are little bigger than older CVs and actually - yes, slower, with the same power output. So you are right
Enterprise 33.6 knots (actual after last refit)
JFK 33.5 (design speed)
Kitty Hawks 33.6 (design speed)
Forrestal 32.0 knots (design speed, lower because of only 260k HP compared to 280k for above)
Nimitz 31.5 knots (actual)
Theodore Roosevelt 31.3 knots (actual)
Harry S Truman 30.9 knots (actual)