Nuclear vs Non Nuclear Aircraft Carrier: The Differences Explained

So, there are two big advantages for nuclear-powered vessels over non-nuclear vessels:
1 - There is more power available for shipboard sensors or weapons. Modern sensors require a lot of power and nuclear-powered vessels have the power to spare. Also, newer vessels will mount weapons requiring more power than most current systems. An example of this would be the rail gun mounted on the new destroyers.
2 - There is more space onboard for other stores. On an aircraft carrier, space not taken up by fuel for the carrier itself can be used for weapons and fuel for embarked aircraft. This allows for longer sustained operations without outside resupply. This also holds true for those few non-carrier nuclear vessels that were launched.
The big disadvantage is the operating and construction cost of a nuclear vessel. This is why there are very few non-carrier nuclear vessels. The US had a few nuclear-powered cruisers and the USSR launched the Kirov class battlecruisers. Only the latter are still in service.

[alanhutchins]

The UK has nuclear powered submarines and has the infrastructure to send nuclear powered ships to sea. THE main reason for conventional powered carriers is that UK ships are likely to berth in former UK colonies, European, and Commonwealth waters. Those sovereign states have treaties in place that prevent nuclear powered vessels from entering those ports.

[dennisleighton]

Comparisons are odious! For the UK, building one massive carrier would not make much sense, as it would need to take it out of service to upgrade, and to allow for crew rest and recuperation. it would then have no carrier. Personally, I believe the US should diversify and build an equal (or double the number) of smaller carriers similar to the QE, to provide flexibility and spread assets in case of nuclear attack. Three carriers like QE can be built for the cost of one GR Ford carrier, but together, can carry far more air assets! They also have a much longer lifespan than nuclear carriers. To refuel and upgrade a nuclear carrier costs more than its original build cost after 25 years! So, I don't say necessarily the conventional carrier is better, but rather there is a case top be made for a mixed fleet, capitalising of situational strengths as and when required.

[johnlee]

The one thing that seems to always get overlooked at with the QE class of carriers was that they were delayed for years because of a UK defence reviews. That delay caused the carrier to take much longer to be built but also bumped up the cost to build them by nearly a billion IIRC.

As for the carriers themselves, I think the QE class are a great carrier, but they will be the last conventional carriers built by the UK. As the new nuclear reactor technology is so advanced now, they no longer need refuelling. The new reactors are also pretty much plug and play all in one, self-contained units. As Roll Royce is making massive advances in reactor tech and is looking to roll out small modular reactors right across the UK. That will literally be produced on a production line and used to generate electricity for the UK domestic market.

I wish i had spare cash to invest into Rolls Royce because between the SMR and several other pies RR has their fingers in that company is going to boom like crazy in the next ten years.

Note: I'm not a financial advisor and I don't know what I'm talking about in that sense, I just wish I had money to invest in RR.

[ErnestJay]

In simple answer : Conventional Aircraft Carrier are cheaper to build and cheaper to operate compare to Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier.

[yogeshthakur]

#NuclearAircraftCarrier is need of future because of high use of tech. radar, drones and laser weapons, #electricity is required at high amount. Conventional are good for short range but if you need #BlueWaterNavy Nuclear is best.

[verdebusterAP]

Conventional and nuclear both have pros and cons
In combat, Conventional cons are problematic than their pros

[steve-iwbg]

I think you meant to say the QEC is 67% the size of ford. No way ford is 67% larger than QEC

[pravinbhoyar]

Nuclear and Conventional these two aircraft carriers share Some merits and some demerits
If you have more budget so you can afford Nuclear aircraft carrier but You have restricted budget so you can afford Conventional aircraft carrier
Overall Budget and Politics those are major reason for development 😊

[paulfollo]

Queen Elizabeth is powered by two Rolls-Royce Marine Gas turbine engines not just diesel

[frankmueller]

Go forward, America! Long live the Nato! Long live freedom! Down with all dictatorships and terrorists all around the world! Best wishes from Germany!

[jamesedward]

I wonder why did it take shocking 12 years for India to just build a shell of Vikrant, as you bought engines, radars, defence systems, electronic warfares, and even arresting gears from other countries.

[kokomo]

Except you forgot to mention the 10 other US attack carriers used by the Marines. These carriers are larger than some of the frontline carriers of other countries mentioned.

[rajeshrai]

yaa nucler carrier unlimited power but operater need food that is limited and dranage, water, waste etc need to exchange atlest monthly basic that time fuel can also fill for conventional easy to repair if ship sink also there is no problem of nuclear hazard after 25 rebuild coat same as getting new carrier

[Justineexy]

Not what you think? It's obvious that nearly 90% of your scripts is based on "Not what you think" video.

[rezonrodrigues]

Ins Vishal will be our Nuclear Power Air craft.

[rickhunter]

I PREFER CONVENTIONAL CARRIERS, YOU CAN WASTE MORE MONEY FOR FUEL BUT IT'S MORE SECURE FOR THE CREW.

[GunsNFunTV]

I feel like the person who made this video watched the channel “not what you think” to get there information for this video.

[Andrew-ybuv]

HMS QE is not diesel powered. It's propulsion is electrical.

[janban]

Gerald F. Ford has at least 2 x125 MW !!! What amateurishness!

[SUNNYSTARSCOUT]

When do you think Russia will build a new aircraft carrier??? Their shipping industry has been get trouble seen the end of Soviet Union.