Are nuclear surface ships coming back?

[landlubber]

Congress has been talking about making the Navy build nuclear surface ships for a while. Is it a good idea?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf

[Roll Tide]

Excellent idea! It was a pity seeing the CGN's decommed after the First Gulf War; they excelled in blockading (which looks like a major naval activity in the future).

[LDO4CNO]

Landlubber, here are my thoughts.  I think it may be a long time before we see this.  Although the general public seems to be more receptive to Nuc's than they were a couple of decades ago, I am not sure they like spending Defense dollars.  If you look at our defense spending it seems we are spending on shorter term solutions rather than long term solutions. 

I think the warfighters (Senior Military types) want more firepower.  Any money spent on Nuc smallboys may be viewed as money that could have been spent on more Bang for the Buck if you will.  While CVN's and Subs realize a significant advantage with Nucs, I dont know that the advantage is as significant on smallboys. 

It would be interesting to say the least.  I would like to see it.  Heck, it might just give you guys at Lockheed a little job security.

JB 

[HydroDave63]

Excellent idea! It was a pity seeing the CGN's decommed after the First Gulf War; they excelled in blockading (which looks like a major naval activity in the future).

Ummm...not really. Although the Long Beach had more original armaments with the twin 5"/38 turrets, the later CGNs were designed with the early 80s 'Red Storm Rising' threat of long-range battlegroup air defense (and pitifully inadequate ASW) and 2 5"/54 guns. Being swarmed by a couple dozen Basij Boghammer speedboats in the Straits (like the Vincennes incident in 1988) would overwhelm any of those CGN designs (not enough deck to install numerous RAM launchers, etc).

On the other hand, something like the Kirov designs with a CONAG setup, all electric (which DD-X is supposed to use) with lots of deck space for RAM, Bushmaster 25mm or other close range weapons for the sppedboat swarm, might work better. Cost-justify a DD-X variant with an S8G in back, would be the challenge....

[landlubber]

Hmmm..

It seems that no one is opening the link to see what congress is thinking. I shouldn't do this, but here is a quote:

2005 Naval Reactors Quick Look Analysis. The 2005 NR quick look
analysis was conducted at the request of Representative Roscoe Bartlett, who was
then chairman of the Projection Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services
Committee (since renamed the Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee).
The analysis concluded that the total life-cycle cost (meaning the sum of procurement
cost, life-cycle operating and support cost, and post-retirement disposal cost) of a
nuclear-powered version of a large-deck (LHA-type) amphibious assault ship would
equal that of a conventionally powered version of such a ship if the cost of crude oil
over the life of the ship averaged about $70 per barrel. The study concluded that the
total life-cycle cost of a nuclear-powered surface combatant would equal that of a
conventionally powered version if the cost of crude oil over the life of the ship
averaged about $178 per barrel. This kind of calculation is called a life-cycle cost
break-even analysis. The study noted but did not attempt to quantify the
mobility-related operational advantages of nuclear propulsion for a surface ship.

CGNs and LHANs?

Who knows.

If you are interested, open the link. It is congressional testimony, but not too bad.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf

[deltarho]

I once heard of the Tennessee Class--one nuc and one gas powered engineroom.  It is obvious about the benefits of both and the drawbacks--they are the perfect couple.

[landlubber]

I once heard of the Tennessee Class--one nuc and one gas powered engineroom.  It is obvious about the benefits of both and the drawbacks--they are the perfect couple.

Actually, CVN-78 used to be called CVN-21, and before that CVN-X, and before that CVX. (Someone from Northrop Grumman Newport News can help us with the dates. I think I remember seeing a CV(N)X too.) The early studies looked at options like what you are mentioning. The nuke plant provides reliable power to hotel loads and decent speed, then the gas turbines are used to launch planes or transit at flank speed (maximum speed.)

Answering those engine orders would be fun. 

[Labbq]

I was on the USS Virginia (CGN-38) during Operation Desert Shield.  Our whole battle group went through the canal while we stayed off the coast of Israel for the duration of the conflict.  This would have been much more difficult if we had been conventional.

I would like to see them come back. 

[Roll Tide]

Ummm...not really. Although the Long Beach had more original armaments with the twin 5"/38 turrets, the later CGNs were designed with the early 80s 'Red Storm Rising' threat of long-range battlegroup air defense (and pitifully inadequate ASW) and 2 5"/54 guns.

The CGNs left out there on blockade duty did not require nearly the support the conventionals required. The rest had to run back to "Gasoline Alley" or the equivalent in the Gulf for more Petrol. I wasn't referring to the weapons mix; they were much better armed than the vessel I was on during that time (an AD with a Stinger missile crew onboard)!

[rlbinc]

No, because they never went away.

I was on USS Long Beach (CGN-9) and USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70).
In BOTH cases, we were able to run without attachment to 15 knot Oilers.

The USS Long Beach was old and rickety. It wasn't an obsolete design, it was materially beyond salvage. The poor thing had shaft line bearings so bad that it required a Machinist Mate with a hand oiler to answer bells.
We had pipe lagging that shouldn't be removed - if you know what I mean.
But the ship originally had Talos missiles so sweet that they shot down a MiG over North Vietnam from way out in the Tonkin Gulf. The shot became so notorious that Congress gave up the Talos program under a Strategic Arms Limitation Talk. Talos was considered Strategic after that shot.

The Spruance Class FFGs and their (then) new Gas Turbines were quicker from zero to flank - but couldn't stray far from the gas pump.
Some of that was administrative Bravo Sierra - the gassers had to maintain 96% fuel inventory.

The long haul is hands down dominated by Nuclear ships. We could run - uh oh - the censors are watching - pretty dang fast for a long time.

Given the fact that the US obtains oil from the Middle East and South America, the ability to project sea power with less of an obvious dependence on a foreign oil supply (ALL carriers burn JP-5 all day long by fueling jets) speaks loudly in those parts of the world.

Speak Loudly, and Carry a Big (Nuclear) Stick. (adapted from Teddy Roosevelt)

[shayne]

I understood the surface ship hybrid design was to use gas turbines for pulling in and out ports.  Start up and shutdown the nuclear plants at sea and even use the gas turbines as emergency power/propulsion if the reactors shutdown.  It was rumored that the nuclear plants could pull into port cold, therefore eliminate some of the fill safety systems.

One of the operation costs associated with the nuclear cruiser was the manpower.  The nuclear cruiser (not sure about Long Beach) required approx. 550 sailors.  The gas turbine approx.  350.  Over 20 years, paying 200 nuclear operators drove the operational cost up considerable.

[rlbinc]

I can't believe the Navy would consider Fill Systems important enough to install gas turbines or conventional boilers.
Navy Reactors are not, and never have been "licenseable" to 10 CFR 50 (NRC) standards. You'll find ECCS Requirements for Light Water Zirconium Clad reactors in 10 CFR 50.46.

Have you ever seen a DBA LOCA analysis for Navy Reactor?
A Loop breaks in two, ad to that a concurrent Loss of AC Electrical Power (we'd call that Loss of Offsite Power in the civilian world), now add a Single Active Component Failure. One EDG doesn't start, or an ECCS Pump doesn't start...

You get the picture, these plants are built to vastly different safety standards. Navy Reactors power warships, and do so with an impressive safety record - but are not built to mitigate the same conditions as a licensed commercial reactor.

Fill Pumps are a gesture, but not a commitment to safety, as you would have in a commercial power plant. Have you ever heard of a Navy Reactor shutting down and cooling down due to a bad Fill Pump?

Stout system margins used in Navy applications make LOCAs less likely, they are not - at all - built to mitigate them.

[deltarho]

Have you ever heard of a Navy Reactor shutting down and cooling down due to a bad Fill Pump?

No, but we stayed greater than 12 miles from land until we could pass the fill test...about 4 days longer than "scheduled."

[rlbinc]

Yeah, you gotta wonder about minimizing LOCA risk by remaining at sea and operating. That action adds to your post accident decay heat and radiological source term.
Which defies both logic and rational engineering, but rings amazingly familiar to an ex Navy nuke.

Commercial Plants, in contrast, enter a time clock called a "Limiting Condition for Operation" or LCO, requiring a shutdown and cooldown with similar impairments.

But the bean counters will no doubt take interest in the military philosophy.

12 miles. I remember those tagouts. I think we hung them in 12 minutes.

[landlubber]

There have been some great discussions in this thread. Let's keep them on the topics of:

• tactical and strategic utility
• economic feasibility
• stresses on shipyards
• impact on commercial nuclear activities

Please keep references to the actual design details of Naval plants to a minimum.

If you have a question about the sensitivity of a topic, feel free to send me a PM before posting. I'm not from the government, but I am here to help.

[LDO4CNO]

Landlubber,

Your post reasoning the long term cost effectiveness of these ships has one falicy.  Your entering assumption is that the people in charge of the pursestrings have a long term vision.  The fact is, long term vision is "the Next Election" to many of them. 

You seem to be a smart man.... perhaps even a relative young man.....perhaps we will see it in your lifetime.....I think not.

[deltarho]

Yeah, you gotta wonder about minimizing LOCA risk by remaining at sea and operating. That action adds to your post accident decay heat and radiological source term.
Which defies both logic and rational engineering, but rings amazingly familiar to an ex Navy nuke.

Ye of little faith...
Two plants:  one up...one down...no military state of readiness expected off the VA. Capes. 

[landlubber]

Your post reasoning the long term cost effectiveness of these ships has one falicy.  Your entering assumption is that the people in charge of the pursestrings have a long term vision.  The fact is, long term vision is "the Next Election" to many of them. 

No question, ship procurement is a political decision. ALL politicians want to stay in power, and they do so by bringing pork home to their constituents. Nothing says pork like a fat shipbuilding contract. The big questions are:

• Which shipyard would build a CGN?
• What would be the impact to the other work at that shipyard?

To allow the current DD/CG shipyards (Bath Iron Works, Ingalls Shipbuiling) to do nuclear work would be a monstrous political and practical task. Having Northrop Grumman Newport News crank out a couple CGNs in the 14,000-25,000 ton range per year would put a serious dent in their SSN 774 and CVN production. If all of the VIRGINIA class SSN work got sent to EB, that would probably make the Congressmen from Connecticut happy.

If history repeats itself (and it does), the actual cost of the ships and fuel is less important than where the pork goes.

[landlubber]

The feds are studying like mad!

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34179.pdf

The bigger and more power-hungry the ship is, the better the case is for nuclear propulsion:

Quote: The CG(X) is expected to feature a radar that is larger and more powerful than
the SPY-1 radar on the Navy's current Aegis cruisers and destroyers or the dual-band
radar that is to be carried by the DDG-1000. The Navy has testified that the power
requirement of the CG(X) combat system, including the new radar, could be about
30 or 31 megawatts, compared with about 5 megawatts for the Aegis combat
system. The CG(X) radar's greater power is intended, among other things, to give
the CG(X) more capability for BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) operations than Navy's Aegis cruisers and
destroyers (or the DDG-1000, for which BMD is not a principal mission).

A nuclear-powered CG(X) would be more capable than a corresponding
conventionally powered version because of the mobility advantages of nuclear
propulsion, which include, for example, the ability to make long-distance transits at
high speeds in response to distant contingencies without need for refueling. Navy
officials have also stated that a nuclear power plant might be appropriate for the
CG(X) in light of the high energy requirements of the CG(X)'s powerful BMD-capable
radar.

That much power is begging for a nuclear power plant. The report also discusses potentially using two USS SEAWOLF plants, or one reactor from the USS FORD class of CVNs (which has not been built yet.) If you just had one reactor on a CGN, I assume you would want some honking EDGs for backup. Since CG(X) will have electric drive, you could get underway on diesel power only.

[Marlin]

The feds are studying like mad!

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34179.pdf

The bigger and more power-hungry the ship is, the better the case is for nuclear propulsion:

Good point and bearing in mind that rail guns are not that far off, there is that much more incentive to maintain a healthy nuclear power infrastucture to support it.

[rlbinc]

With a 30 Mwe load, old cruiser reactors aren't the answer.
You still have to have propulsion.

Maybe carrier reactors could be shoehorned into a "city" cruiser hull.
City cruisers were roughly 720 ft / 14,000 ton vessels, such as USS Chicago, USS Oklahoma City, and the only nuclear "city" cruiser, USS Long Beach.

The "state" cruisers, USS California and USS Virginia class were much smaller hulls, closer to 600 ft / 9500 tons those hulls won't accommodate big plants. They were DLGNs by design "Destroyer Leaders" then "Guided Missile Frigates" a misguided act of Congress designated them as "Cruisers". I think they were the smallest "Cruisers" in the world.

[flamatrix99]

12 miles. I remember those tagouts. I think we hung them in 12 minutes.

I still can tell you the valve numbers for an S8G plant and it has been about 13 years since I was stationed on one!

[93-383]

The feds are studying like mad!

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34179.pdf

The way that article reads they would like to make CGNs and DDGNs the only thing left gas turbine would be LCS. My only question is, we can't reach manning and retention goals now how the hell are we going to get the kind of numbers to run the plants of nearly every ship in the navy?

[landlubber]

The way that article reads they would like to make CGNs and DDGNs the only thing left gas turbine would be LCS. My only question is, we can't reach manning and retention goals now how the hell are we going to get the kind of numbers to run the plants of nearly every ship in the navy?

Good point, but don't forget the LPDs, oilers and other auxiliaries.

As for manning, the Reactor Department for the FORD class of CVNs is going to be tiny compared to NIMITZ class. I can't get into details. There is plenty of room in the pipeline (assuming one of the buckets at NPTU Ballston Spa starts up this decade.) If they really use half of a FORD propulsion plant for the CGN, and if they only build 5, then CGN nuke manning will but a very small proportion of all Navy nukes.

[LaFeet]

I still can tell you the valve numbers for an S8G plant and it has been about 13 years since I was stationed on one!

OMG !!!  Stop... dont say it..I'm trying to forget those things......arrrrgggg!!! 

BTW, If they (them) build a nuke Battleship, Id sign up - again - maybe