The Ford-class aircraft carrier is an advanced nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, while the British Queen-class aircraft carrier is a medium-sized conventionally powered aircraft carrier. Both types of aircraft carriers have their own advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost performance. Although in terms of cost, the cost of the British Queen-class aircraft carrier is low, there may be certain disadvantages in terms of the sortie rate of carrier-based aircraft and the convenience of carrier-based aircraft take-off and landing. First of all, the cost of building the hull probably does not change much between the two types of aircraft carriers. However, there is a clear difference in marine equipment.
Some equipment must be configured regardless of the size of the ship, such as navigation radars on the bridge of a nautical ship, satellite navigation systems, etc. Therefore, splitting a large aircraft carrier into two medium aircraft carriers actually leads to an increase in costs. Second, the Queen-class aircraft carriers are simpler than the Ford-class aircraft carriers in terms of radar, electronic warfare, and communications equipment. The Ford-class aircraft carrier has four advanced electromagnetic catapults and a landing interception system, as well as energy storage equipment and generator sets for the catapults, thus improving the sortie rate and combat capability of carrier-based aircraft.
If the radar, electronic warfare and communication capabilities of the Queen-class aircraft carriers are to be improved, as well as the sortie rate of carrier-based aircraft, they must be equipped with advanced equipment, which will greatly increase the cost. In addition, the Ford-class aircraft carrier also adopts the design of the beveled deck, which makes the take-off and landing of carrier-based aircraft more convenient. In contrast, the Queen-class aircraft carrier may have certain disadvantages in this regard.
Therefore, although the cost of the Queen-class aircraft carrier is lower, to improve its overall performance, it will require a significant increase in investment, and the final cost performance may not be much higher than that of the Ford-class aircraft carrier. It would be feasible to design a Queen-class aircraft carrier with four electromagnetic catapult systems, but accordingly additional beveled decks would need to be added to accommodate these systems. During the design phase of the Queen-class aircraft carrier, the option of a beveled deck was actually considered. The increase in the beveled deck will improve the operational efficiency of the deck, but it will also increase the difficulty of landing carrier-based aircraft.
Compared with the Ford-class aircraft carriers, the Queen-class aircraft carriers have a shorter angled deck, which makes it more difficult for carrier-based aircraft to land. In addition, the beveled deck divides the flight deck and adds complexity to flight deck scheduling. So, for.
For 50,000 or 60,000-ton aircraft carriers or amphibious assault ships, a Queen-class flight deck layout may be a more appropriate choice, as the number of carrier-based aircraft is smaller and the flight deck is easier to dispatch. In addition, the flutter of the floating part of the flight deck is also small, which reduces the difficulty of landing for carrier-based aircraft.
For the defense system of the aircraft carrier, there are also cost considerations. But to achieve the same defense, removing the beveled deck will not reduce the cost, as it will double the cost. In addition to the angled deck, the defense of the Ford-class aircraft carriers includes two improved "Sea Sparrow" RIM-162 missile eight-pack launchers, two "Hiram Ram" RIM-116 anti-aircraft missile launchers, and three MK15 20 mm 6-barrel Phalanx guns.
The Queen-class aircraft carrier has a relatively simple configuration for defensive self-defense**, including three American-made MK-15 Block 1B Phalanx short-range defense** systems and four DS30B 30mm naval guns. Not only is this configuration less costly, but it also means that the number of defenses** and the cost of the system are doubled to achieve the same defenses. In addition, the lower cost of the Queen-class aircraft carrier is related to the power configuration and speed.
In contrast, its powertrain performance is low, with a maximum speed of only 25-27 knots, while Ford-class aircraft carriers can reach more than 30 knots. This also results in nearly half the cost of purchasing and fueling the power system, because the sailing resistance is proportional to the speed, and reducing the speed by a quarter will reduce the sailing resistance by half, thus reducing the powertrain power, equipment and fuel costs. The reduction in maintenance time and life-cycle costs for Ford-class aircraft carriers indicates that advances in nuclear power technology have a positive impact on aircraft carrier uptime and costs.
In addition, the number of carrier-based aircraft also affects the combat capability and cost of the aircraft carrier, since the combat capability and number of carrier-based aircraft are directly proportional. When choosing an aircraft carrier, performance is directly proportional to cost, if you want to improve performance, you have to increase cost, and to reduce cost, you need to reduce performance. The low cost of the Queen-class aircraft carriers is achieved by sacrificing performance. However, splitting a large aircraft carrier into two smaller aircraft carriers does not improve the cost performance, but rather leads to a decrease in the cost performance.
For comparison, two ships 6.A 50,000-ton conventionally powered aircraft carrier is less cost-effective than a 120,000-ton nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. In addition, there are doubts about whether the attendance rate of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers is really lower than that of conventionally powered aircraft carriers. And whether the domestic 003 nuclear-powered aircraft carrier needs a nuclear-powered icebreaker to verify the reactor is also a matter of great concern. Therefore, whether to use conventional power or nuclear power in the selection of the power system of the aircraft carrier is still a topic that needs to be carefully considered.