There has been an update on the Royal Navy’s effort to explore nuclear-powered surface ships, building on its earlier Request for Information (RFI) issued last year.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has now invited industrial stakeholders to a workshop at Navy Command HQ in Portsmouth on 20 February 2025 to discuss th0e feasibility and strategic vision for a novel nuclear-powered navy.

According to the updated notice, “This will be an opportunity for the Royal Navy to engage with industrial stakeholders on a novel Nuclear Surface Fleet then seek industry’s view on investigating a plausible strategic vision for a novel nuclear navy focusing on the operational advantages and feasibility of nuclear technology in naval surface applications.”

The workshop will focus on validating concepts, identifying research questions, and laying the groundwork for further research and development.

The workshop is limited to 50 attendees and is open to industry stakeholders only, with no press or public participation permitted.

The MOD, in the announcement, made clear that this engagement does not constitute a pre-qualification exercise, stating, “Any formal procurement process will be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Procurement Law. Nothing in the event shall be construed as a representation as to the Authoritys ultimate decision in relation to any future requirement.”

This workshop is a continuation of the Royal Navy’s broader exploration of nuclear technologies for surface ships, initiated with the September 2024 RFI. That RFI sought insights from the defence industry about integrating Generation 4 nuclear reactors into the fleet. The focus was on understanding how advanced reactors—such as Small Modular Reactors (SMRs)—could improve efficiency, reduce environmental impact, and enhance operational capabilities.

The MOD asked industry leaders to provide detailed technical information on reactor designs, power output, safety features, and lifecycle sustainability assessments. The RFI also explored the feasibility of integrating nuclear power into existing and future ship designs, as well as the potential implications for training, crewing, and maintenance.

These advanced technologies, designed to be safer, more efficient, and environmentally friendly, represent a significant evolution from traditional reactors. They also offer the potential to extend operational range and reduce logistical dependency on fuel supplies, a key advantage in modern naval operations.

While nuclear propulsion has been widely used in submarines, its application to surface ships—common in the U.S. and French navies—represents a new frontier for the UK. Nuclear-powered carriers, such as the U.S. Navy’s Gerald R. Ford-class and France’s Charles de Gaulle, showcase the strategic advantages of extended operational endurance and reduced fuel reliance.

Despite the Royal Navy’s extensive use of nuclear propulsion in its submarines, including the Vanguard and Astute classes, its surface fleet remains conventionally powered.

Call to Industry

The workshop aims to gather further insights from industry experts on the integration of nuclear technologies. Discussions will focus on:

  • Feasibility of using Generation 4 nuclear reactors in surface ships.
  • Safety and regulatory considerations.
  • Environmental and sustainability challenges.
  • Implications for ship design, crewing, and maintenance.

Participants are required to RSVP by 31 January 2025, with detailed instructions to follow for successful applicants.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

123 COMMENTS

    • Certainly it will increase cost and make the ships less welcome in many places. Agreed, I cannot see this being a smart move for non-strategic (Submarine & Aircraft Carrier) resources. SMRs sound good, but then so does AI (will now save the economy) and Directed Energy Weapons (only ÂŁ20 a shot).

    • Not many ports allow nuclear powered vessels. I know it’s a stretch, but having non nuclear allows the carriers to do more port visits.

      • ‘Traditional’ nuclear power plants massively increase the cost of building, crewing and maintaining a ship, to a degree that dwarfed any benefit in terms of reducing replenishment requirements. The point of this workshop will likely be ‘does that still hold true for ‘Gen 4′ reactors?’.

        • I think that indeed will be the focus, it’s about educating the Navy about events that are probably about potential decisions many years down the line, but conceptually best considered soon a sort of ‘thinking outside the box’ moment in determining the longer term future and good for them in doing so as clearly it has implications for all manner of other technology and that’s the focus I suspect, not simply propulsion but how we provide power more generally to the equipment on board and how that effects even the size and proportions of future ships. Clearly small modular reactors are the driving force here and if they are to be a factor in energy provision then a thorough understanding of them is vital if decisions are to be made. Potentially such reactors could be provided in two standard containers reactor/control and exploited within the mission bays of frigates or more likely the next destroyer designs so design considerations are affected and need to be examined now. It maybe this that dictates whether a combined propulsion/power set up is the better bet.

          So my immediate dismissing of this when it was first brought to light last year has I won’t deny softened upon reading it now and the research I have since carried out. Modular reactors should be inherently safer than the full scale or traditional versions we see now, whereby the modular types inherently close down the nuclear reaction if (as with the re energised molten salt designs) there is any interruption to support and control mechanisms, the opposite to what we see in older reactor types that we are used to.

    • The Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier was designed to be exceptionally upgradable, and the theoretical idea is that during their midlife refit they’ll have their gas turbines & ski ramp replaced with modular SMRs & EMALS on an angled deck once both technologies are mature, and the F-35Bs replaced with either F-35Cs or a navalised version of Tempest.

      *Theoretically.*

      • Just realised “modular SMRs” is a tautology like “PIN number”, but, whatever, you know what I mean


  3. Would it remove the need for RFAs (outside of carrier ops)?

    Definitely worth looking at if it has knock-on benefits but it will be relatively expensive (and perhaps cause other issues e.g. with port visits).

    • Not really, ships still need resupplies of stores and aviation fuel even if they’re nuclear, Intresting idea with the SMR tho

    • Not at all, no.

      Even if every carrier, frigate & destroyer etc in the fleet were nuclear-powered, aircraft operating from ships (including helicopters onboard destroyers & frigates) need fuel, spare parts and munitions. The ships themselves need spare parts and munitions. Sailors need food and fresh water, etc.

    • I seem to recall us having nuclear surface ships in the past, but may be wrong. I do remember many countries, including Australia refusing to let us dock there because they considered it a risk to local inhabitants.

      • Realistically had the British Empire been able to transition as part of 100 year decolonsing plan then the Royal Navy would have nuclear powered ships by now but also figured out how you were suppose to dispose of them when they were retired

      • You are remembering the UK never affirming or denying wether certain ships (the Invincible class I think) were carrying nuclear armed depth charges which got them banned from NZ and Australian ports .. to the best of my knowledge without looking it up.

        • Not to be unduly dismissive but the USA has a track record of premature introduction along with trying to insert too many insufficiently new technologies. We have had our own foulups, but RR in particular rarely does that.

    • True enough. The MoD needs to keep on top of the latest tech for obvious reasons, but costs are key and are not being included in the subject list which plays into the ‘conspiracy of optimism’ that says that modern technology can solve everything and will be cheaper this time round…

      There would be far fewer cost over runs if folk were honest about the risks and associated cost of new tech…

      Cheers CR

      • Miliband, will insist on Solar or Wind not the devil’s Ore or Fossil. .I myself was thinking of oars . British Olympic rowers could train up new entry recruits at Jupiter point . Naval personnel with upper body strength and Green energy solutions .Net zero for Miliband. Win win .

        • Probably the next step forward in the Green agenda..but more likely there will be a return to Sail and bows and arrows for close in defence

          • ArieneSpace move their Rockets across the Atlantic by ‘sailboat’ mind so every interesting developments in that sphere though I suspect radar hell for a warship.

        • Tommo, you’re always messing about with oars, scrubbers, n dirty things like that! 👍 Shipwreck. đŸ•łïžđŸ™ƒBtth.

  6. Nuclear powered surface ships are a terrible idea, the Russians have to have them because they can’t make gas’s turbines or diesel engines. The US is stuck with them in their carriers as much for political reasons as anything else and France did it once and massively regretted it’s with CDG.

    Even if it was a good idea it would kill any chance of exports and you would never be able to make a port visit again.

    They would also cost a fortune.

    When your the worlds best maker of marine turbine engines you don’t need nuclear reactors.

    • World’s best maker? Majority of recent warships have broken engines.
      Also France’s next carrier is nuclear. I’m not saying this is a good idea but nuclear carriers have advantages

      • They have advantages if you can afford several.

        The biggest disadvantage to France’s current carrier, Charles De Gaulle, is that there is only one of them. This means half the year France has no carrier capability, and has to hope that, if war comes, it comes when she’s not undergoing maintenance.

        Another issue is disposal afterwards; that can cost an absolute fortune and take a hell of a long time. Mid-life refits can take years due to having to replace the nuclear fuel, and disposal takes even longer. I doubt it saves any money compared to the fuel costs of a conventionally-powered carrier. Plus our carrier can dock in far more ports than US ones can.

        I know some (mostly Americans) mock the QE carriers for not being nuclear powered, but the QEs have a 10,000-mile range on its own fuel tanks alone. And the Royal Fleet Auxiliary can easily refuel the carrier at sea. US escorts aren’t nuclear-powered, either, so they have their own auxiliary supply ships accompanying the carrier, so really it makes no difference.

      • Also, yes, we’re among if not the best at making ships. All ships experience engine problems at some point or another. And it’s not the builders’ fault if the customer (Royal Navy) has no money to maintain them.

        So world’s best ship makers – definitely up there.

        Not so much when it comes to keeping them going – though I think the main problem here is having so few units that we run them into the ground through overuse.

        • Unfortunately we’re really not, incredibly slow and inexperienced as well as underfunded. Little to non commercial work plays a part in this.

          In regards to propulsion, several designs have had flaws, Qnlz class has pretty much been solved but Pwls was rushed into service with bad quality work on its prop shafts.
          Intercooler is an unfortunate fault on the T45 but the fact the design doesn’t have enough diesel gens to operate without them is worse
          Astute batch 1s are having their heat exchangers replaced because the original was not up to scratch and in combination with lack of dry docks has resulted in 3 laid up for 2-3 years

          • A few years back the Aus did not have a carrier available in the Atlantic when the one leaving port to take up that tour of duty broke down and others were in or queuing up to enter available dry docks, they had to nick parts from one of those undergoing refit to get the broken down one back into service. In the meantime the French had to cover its role for a while. Of course that’s the French carrier that spent years toed up alongside before it could be commissioned because it broke EU nuclear safety regulations and finally did so only when this regulations under pressure from the French Govt were reduced to fit. The Daily Mail would have had a field day had these been British ‘events’.

      • Wrong, no “broken engines”. Flaws in intercoolers, prop issues, etc yes, but nothing wrong with the actual engines.

          • But the various replies here were in response to a comment about the performance of the turbines and went in very British self deprecating style somewhat off piste to find something to blame even though in some cases they weren’t actually British ie intercoolers and heat exchangers, as the turbines have been fine, indeed incorporated in various vessels all around the world even US ones, without major issues and generally gaining much praise.

      • Well that’s mostly due to design decisions that incorporated American intercoolers not the gas turbines themselves.

        But I think people are more generally not getting the point here. There will not be nuclear power as we know it today in uk escort warships I would claim at any time in the future. What this is about is clearly studying new innovative nuclear options that will have little in common with present designs and will be inherently safer and with the capacity to produce all the power future ships will require, be it for propulsion or otherwise. It is about determining the practicality of these new designs and concepts exactly to determine IF they are worth considering for exploitation (considering new technology’s power requirements) and as to whether, if and when they might achieve the levels of practicality, cost and safety many of their proposers and technologists are claiming. Just wish people would understand why this is being discussed rather than argue about technology it isn’t actually considering for the most part. We need to keep abreast of developments to make even early plans about future platforms. One of the first questions I suspect they will confront is whether non nuclear technology can actually provide the power requirements of future ships. That will probably guide where it goes thereafter.

      • Nothing wrong with the engines, it’s the cooling system and back up diesel on the T45. No issues on the carriers, it’s the propeller shaft.

        • That’s what I was thinking though as and when fusion comes along there are designs that though wiith a little less effiviency in the reaction itself will directly produce electrons that can be harvested and thus alleviating the need for all that add on turbine equipment altogether. Can’t offhand think of any equivalent or alternative methods for fission reactors, though I can imagine ideas being put forward from time to time. Might have to check that out.

          • Fission and fusion both produce the vast majority of their energy output in the form of electromagnetic (as opposed to kinetic) radiation and this to a large extent is manifested as heat, doing something with that heat is what makes things work.

            Plus fusion reactors are still decades away from becoming commercial, despite what snippets of progress get reported.

      • They can’t make gas turbines very well which is why they get stuck looking at nuclear. Very different to steam turbines on a reactor. Gas turbines have to have massively increased tolerance.

    • Hi Jim I’m not surprised that they are looking at this, in fact I’d be got smacked if they weren’t. I actually read the MOD RFI when it came out last year and it’s a very broad canvas, very forward thinking and absolutely nothing to do with SMR or present generation Reactors. You can’t look backwards at the US and Russian warships of the past and assume that’s what we get, it’s like comparing HMS Dreadnought of 1906 powered by Parsons Steam Turbines with HMS Queen Elizabeth powered by IEP MT30’s.

      Yep they both have round turbine blades and propellers but that’s about it.đŸ€·đŸŒâ€â™‚ïž

      Nuclear Power is going through a turbocharged metamorphosis right now, it’s spurred on by the need for green electricity and it’s driving new tech forwards and costs /size downwards. As in most articles the Devil is in the detail and it specifically mentions GIV Reactors, those are the next generation of reactors using far higher levels of tech than the present and previous generations. At present there are 6 different types being looked at around the world using Helium, Sodium or Lead as a Coolant, they are focussed on being efficient, small, cheap and don’t produce the ultra long term waste of todays tech.
      So I don’t think we will ever see a HEU reactor in anything other than a sub or carrier, but LEU or HALEU in a MMR based on GIV tech may just be very affordable and given the growing Electricity requirements of warships may just be the only real alternative.

      The article does have a flaw in it and I suspect that’s because not everyone knows the difference between an SMR and MMR. If you read the actual MOD RFI it doesn’t mention SMR anywhere which isn’t surprising as they are essentially re engineered, simplified GIII water cooled reactors and cost up to £2 billion each. It is specifically looking at MMR which are Micro Modular Reactors, which are way smaller and could just be the long term future of Nuclear powered ships !

      • Thanks for that, I must admit I hadn’t realised that difference myself between SMR and MMR reactors but otherwise it seems we are on the same track. It’s difficult trying to get people’s mindset away from what they have long envisioned in terms of technology so far too often simply take a negative stance based on out of date understanding of things. As I said elsewhere above if it ever comes about it will NOT be what we think of today as reactors. I note that one of the Gen lV designs is the molten salt based designs I mentioned elsewhere which I have studied a little and is inherently safe in as much as the default state is the discontinuation of the nuclear reactor should external controls be severed or broken in some way. The others I must admit I know little about though AGC reactors offer up a little irony from my childhood.

        Might be worth mentioning though perhaps fanciful or at best extremely optimistic, that we have at least a couple companies of those many organisations involved in the technologies involved, claiming that they will have viable fusion reactors by the early thirties. I guess it is at least sensible to give some thought to such claims in case anything does come of them. I even note that when Johnson in one of his last acts as PM laid spade to ground on the latest UK fusion project that the information relating to it online claimed it to be a prototype of a production reactor with an actual commercial follow up by the mid thirties. Believe it when I see any of this but if you are planning platforms for the 40s probably best not to just ignore.

      • How small could a MMR end up being?
        Is it an alternative to a single DG or the entire propulsion of an escort?
        That will probably make a huge difference to how easy it would be to include in new ship designs.

        • All of this depends on desired power output. There are physics limitations on amounts of fissile material, the coolant systems, shielding is a biggy and super heavy, will they be full life of vessel or refuelable etc. SMRs on land clearly have a lot of potential for shrinkage in terms of footprint in acres and materials. Sticking them in a ships hull and sending them into harms way
 I suspect they are about as small as they can be already.

          • When I went round Country in 1986 I saw a 60kW reactor core about the size of a dustbin. You can make reactors in lots of sizes but the cost per kW goes up the smaller you make them.

        • Rolls Royce are looking at MMRs with output from 1 to 10 megawatts. These are not to provide ship propulsion. But they could provide power to a ships electrical systems

      • Good point, my principal concern is that the last generation of reactors Gen 3 said they had to be bigger to save on cost, that didn’t work as they are massively expensive, now the industry wants smaller to save on cost, that too appears to not be working. It’s certainly right the MOD keeps an eye on these developments but given the limited budget I don’t want them spending much on it. If MMR’s are going to work in ships then industry will develop them and there will be something off the shelf we can buy.

        The political problems will still remain though especially around port visits. Only wide scale commercial use will over come that and I don’t see that on the horizon.

  7. Hmm, no mention of cost, procurement or maintenance maintenance costs.

    The US had nuclear powered cruisers in the 60’s, the Long Beach and Bainbridge (although Bainbridge was originally classes as a destroyer). The fact that even the USN has ever only had two nuclear surface warships is telling. The US and French carriers have long maintenance periods because it takes time for the reactors of ‘cool down’.

    The gen 4 reactors will have to match the procurement and running costs of conventionally powered ships if we are not the see our fleet shrink even more than it already has.

    Cheers CR

      • My bad.

        The fact that they ditched them so quickly when the cold war ended and that Ticos were the most numerous cruisers in the 80’s and are only just going out of service I think underlines the costs of nuclear power. Makes sense for subs given the ability to stay deep for extended periods but less so for surface vessels it seems.

        Cheers CR

  8. Huge design and certification costs. Can’t sell on, huge disposal costs and probably requires getting deeper into bed with the US in a one sided relationship. Only upside, I assume, is economies of scale with AUKUS reactors and unlimited power for propulsion, laser and radars. Etc.

  9. And what will they do with said ships once they are “life expended”.
    They are only just getting round to dismantling the first of 20 plus former nuclear subs. They are only dockyards would be full of rusting hulls.

    Just a complete waste of time and effort.

    • Not necessarily this is the whole point I think. Present reactors need to be ‘nurtured’ to remain remotely safe ie at its simplest external power to make sure the nuclear reaction stays controlled. Something like a molten salt if it’s perfected will inherently close down the reaction without external influence so one can at least see how much less of a decommissioning problem it presents. So the viability of such technology in a Micro sized reactor clearly offers possibilities and safety throughout its lifecycle and beyond that otherwise most agree would yes mean its madness to consider present reactor technology in surface vessels. If power requirements start questioning present tech to provide and this new reactor tech matures I can see a case being made for it even if I agree you wouldn’t if it were otherwise wish to have it aboard with the storage even if much less an issue to deal with later.

  10. I get the impression that this is a very different proposition to using the ‘traditional’ prsssurised water reactor that powers SSNs as a power source for surface vessels. Rather, they are reviewing the potential of commercially available ‘microreactors’ as a power source that could be dropped into a hull without necessarily having to design the whole vessel around it. I don’t suppose that these reactors will use HEU either (existing US and UK submarine reactors use fuel that is essentially weapons grade).

    • Exactly. Don’t think traditionally designed nuclear powered ships. Think a small demountable RR reactor module supplying electrical power and taking cooling water via a ships interface. It may not even supply propulsion power but be systems only. It may not be feasible but this is what the workshop is all about. People would soon be moaning if the RN didn’t investigate this type of emerging tech and found itself behind the curve.

    • Exactly.
      They’re looking at the marine equivalent of what SMRs are compared to traditional nuclear power stations. RR has been working on microreactors for use in space and it would be something similar to this technology.

      • At last we are getting it, yes this is rightfully what they are looking at as it will effect the design of future ships substantially if it becomes practical

        As a correlation some of the incredible prop fighters being designed in the war could have matched or exceeded jet speed at the time and yet Bern far more manoeuvrable etc but most knew they were pointless in the longer run and effectively no new prop based designs were IR ministry supported by the end of 1941, even the stuffy top brass we’re seeing the future years before it was proven. So if this Reactor technology succeeds, similar sized vessels in 20+ years time will have the potential far greater than pushing present designs much further without it, they will simply be out classed. So that potential at least needs to be studied in detail now so it can be e addressed later

      • No they aren’t there is no mention of SMR in the RFI it’s MMR (Modular Micro Reactors) which are much smaller and nope RR isn’t building one.

  11. Can’t see it ever happening. Even the US abandoned it for everything other than carriers. The costs are just too high.

  13. Is there something in the tea at Leech Building?
    I’d hope they concentrate on getting actual surface units into the fleet back to 19 then, by some miracle, a tad beyond, before worrying about this.

    • Quite bonkers TBH – qualifying enough nuclear engineers and retaining them would seem to be an issue in the SMR era.

      Can you imagine how hard PiP would be with a nuclear component?

        • Indeed who needs those new fangled jet thingies when we can have incredibly powerful Rolls Royce Eagle engines giving us all the power we need. So let’s only design airframes that can exploit that too, no need to contemplate alternatives old chap. Indeed British jet development was hindered by by the very guy Griffith who first visualised jet based propulsion being convinced that they would never produce enough thrust to do anything other than turn a prop. Why we were so advanced in jet props post war mind.

    • Hi M8 have a read of my reply to Jim, Nuclear Tech is finally on the road to being smaller, efficient, safer and very affordable. Even in the 50’s they knew that water cooling was not ideal, but the tech / materials and research wasn’t ready ! I’ve read the actual RFI and it’s looking way ahead.
      The real key to lower cost is being able to mass produce MMR and at the same time eliminate long term nuclear waste.

      If you want to have look at what they may have in mind Google “Westinghouse eVinci Micro Reactor”, 8MW from a reactor the size of a car !

      • Not sure if this is meant for me with the comment system, but thanks mate, I enjoyed reading it.
        And Good Morning.

  15. 19 escorts will need to be the first step I think. Russia, with China being actively complicit, is using its shadow fleet of merchant ships to not only break sanctions but to break under water infrastructure as well. According to Navy Lookout they about 1000 such vessels that are usually old and in very poor condition. That’s is a lot of ships that will need to be tracked and when moving through NATO waters they will likely need to be shadowed to ensure they are not dragging their anchors…

    The NL article also points out the ships involved in recent incidents have had their AIS tracking systems turned on and the fact that they use their anchors, which often part company from the ship under the strain of being dragged at about 10knots, suggests that the Russians and Chinese are deliberately leaving a trail of evidence as a threat and or a demonstration of their will.

    We don’t need nuclear power escorts, we just need more of the damn things. We need more of everything frankly… or perhaps we should introduce Mandarin classes in schools…

    Cheers CR

  16. The Burkes have an un-refuelled range of 4,400 miles at fleet speed, not enough for the North Atlantic much less the Pacific.

    • But there are supply ships and replenishment tankers accompanying the fleet anyway, so if crossing the North Atlantic they’re either topped up by their own supply ships or by those of a NATO ally.

      The same ships are carrying spare parts, munitions, aviation fuel for helicopters, and also food and fresh water for the crew. Why spend a fortune on a ship with unlimited range when the current situation works fine?

  17. The Navy would only consist of 2 ships if nuclear propulsion was chosen. Stop wasting money on this nonsense, and prioritise on weapon loadouts for the T26s and get batch 2 of the T31s ordered.

  18. Huge design and certification costs. Can’t sell on, huge disposal costs and probably requires getting deeper into bed with the US in a one sided relationship. Only upside, I assume, is economies of scale with AUKUS reactors and unlimited power for propulsion, laser and radars.

  20. I think most commentators on here are missing the mood music coming from the government. Diesel and other fossil fuels is planned to go away or be reduced to much smaller volumes and thus more expensive supply. This initiative is to look at one of the possible alternatives as to what might power RN ships in the future.

  22. These people are living in cloud cookoo land!! Noting that we cannot build a convention powered FF/DD inside 5 years and an SNN takes about 10 years, there is no chance of this happening without huge infrustructure development, nuclear licences for Portsmouth and of course the training of people starting now. There is insufficient will or money and lead time who be at least 30 years. Pie in the sky.

    • Replace all the old cannon with mini guns :-), ideal for anti swarm/drone attack, able to fired a gazillion around a min and has unlimited sailing range reducing needs for tankers

  28. Surely the reason is there is lots of research going on for mini reactors to provide domestic electricity and it is only sensible to see what they can do for the military? Design and disposal costs would potentially be spread over thousands of units if we can market carbon neutral electricity worldwide.

  30. I remember a proposal the get a nuclear-powered fleet tanker that generated synthetic hydrocarbon fuel for the rest of the fleet. Operated like now, but without any need for the tankers to pull in to the nearest Esso station.

  31. As the OP states, this is an RFI and scoping exercise. On area that it could be relevant to is the T83 project, which is still in VERY early stages. This is likely to be a large vessel. Navy Lookout did a good piece on T83 late last year which assessed that it could edge into cruiser size, especially with all the extra VLS that the RN want. Another factor is the growth in DEW which will require a LOT of electrical power, especially to be effective against targets at long range. I’m not pretending to be an expert of DEW energy requirements but nuclear power could be an option for T83.

  32. Personally I would prefer every effort was made to put the RN major surface combatant fleet back where it should always have been, 30 vessels.

  33. The UK has ‘avoided’ having a Nuclear surface fleet since forever. The in’s, out’s and wherefores for this ‘avoidance’, well who the hell knows. The cynic in me wonders whether next months ‘feasibility study’ is more of a way of saving money, rather than any real benefit to a surface fleet. A Nuclear powered ship will not need to regularly topped up with diesel.

    With that in mind, less need for so many RFA vessels, less crews etc and so forth. As I said… mebbe I’m just a cynical swine.

    • But even nuke powered ships still need resupply for weaponry, spares, foods, lubricating machine oils, post etc. Conventional powered ships are far cheaper, are allowed in many more ports than nukes & aren’t an expensive nightmare to decomission. Imagine WW2 with many nuke powered warships(had that been available at the time)-what effect on all marine life & us up the food chain from so many reactors in ships sunk, contaminating the seas. Deisel/fuel oils are quite widely available worldwide, whereas nuclear fuel is very limited.

  34. Aside from the many questions, we cannot lose sight of the need to dispose of the nuclear waste and where it will go. We cannot even dispose of a handful of old submarines. There are clear advantages in the short to medium term with less reliance on refuelling, the indefinite range and so on, but that is about all. As with any and all strategic plans we need to consider very carefully how we will deal with the unplanned yet foreseeable consqeuences. Not least what will happen if such a ship is attacked, sunk or irrepairably damaged, especially in close proximity to land and who is to say that even at a distance there would not be major effects.

  37. Let alone submarines, nuclear power is the obvious choice for aircraft carriers. The UK realises that now, faced with the limitations and the cumbersome maintenance of its 2 QE class carriers. Better late then never ! They will probably buy from the US or France.

  38. They should have been nuclear from when we first had a reactor small enough. Same with the support vessels. However we should build these new ships IN ADDITION to the very very few weeks have at the moment

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here