At least the Maus was still somewhat normal looking. The Atomic tank looks like it was designed by kindegarteners on acidWell, its about time the Maus got a self esteem boost.
At least the Maus was still somewhat normal looking. The Atomic tank looks like it was designed by kindegarteners on acidWell, its about time the Maus got a self esteem boost.
amazing really.
But let us also evaluate one thing:
US defense forces and nuclear:
So, nuclear powered tanks - not so great
nuclear powered bombers: not great either
nuclear-powered cruise missiles: No and no
Nuclear ships: OH YES!!!
But.... despite everything: We do not see any other nuclear-powered ships. No super tankers, no heavy bulk carriers, nothing else but defense forces using nuclear powered boats.
why oh why is that?
Simple. Cost.
Reactors are expensive to build and maintain. Like really expensive. In fact insanely expensive. Commmercial operators are obsessed with keeping costs down, the military not so much. Plus it's a lot easier to get hold of oil than Uranium/Plutonium.
amazing really.
But let us also evaluate one thing:
US defense forces and nuclear:
So, nuclear powered tanks - not so great
nuclear powered bombers: not great either
nuclear-powered cruise missiles: No and no
Nuclear ships: OH YES!!!
But.... despite everything: We do not see any other nuclear-powered ships. No super tankers, no heavy bulk carriers, nothing else but defense forces using nuclear powered boats.
why oh why is that?
amazing really.
But let us also evaluate one thing:
US defense forces and nuclear:
So, nuclear powered tanks - not so great
nuclear powered bombers: not great either
nuclear-powered cruise missiles: No and no
Nuclear ships: OH YES!!!
But.... despite everything: We do not see any other nuclear-powered ships. No super tankers, no heavy bulk carriers, nothing else but defense forces using nuclear powered boats.
why oh why is that?
Simple. Cost.
Reactors are expensive to build and maintain. Like really expensive. In fact insanely expensive. Commmercial operators are obsessed with keeping costs down, the military not so much. Plus it's a lot easier to get hold of oil than Uranium/Plutonium.
Cost equations are somewhat different. A US Supercarrier needs 260,000-280,000 horsepower to push it in excess of 30 knots and also has to produce excess steam to run the catapults, plus a big housekeeping load. Charles De Gaulle pushes 160,000 horsepower to get 27 knots, and the excess steam for catapults and housekeeping load. Meanwhile a record setting huge bulk carrier or oil tanker only has a 40-50,000 horsepower drive train for 15-18 knots and a modest housekeeping load. Also the civilian vessel has to be insured, and the insurance costs for a nuclear reactor are non trivialInteresting. Super tankers are a bit bigger than the usual cruiser/carrier. If it is cost-effective for a carrier, it should be even more so for a tanker or bulk carrier.
The other consideration could be power output. A carrier (I believe) is a using a lot more electrical power than a typical tanker. On the other hand a big marine diesel is a good source of electrical power.
Yes, there were a few nuclear powered ships - NS Savannah - the most famous. Costs were high but also based on either factors.
They existed, four of them. They were uneconomic, but probably could be competitive today.\<smip>
Nuclear ships: OH YES!!!
But.... despite everything: We do not see any other nuclear-powered ships. No super tankers, no heavy bulk carriers, nothing else but defense forces using nuclear powered boats.
why oh why is that?