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

[rlbinc]

New CVNs will be much more thermodynamically efficient, if what I'm hearing is correct.

Smaller plants can push more steel. The size issue of older plants might not play into it as much.

[ddklbl]

http://govexec.com/dailyfed/1007/103107cdam1.htm

Culled from the ANS news page.

Nuclear power rule for future Navy ships divides Hill negotiators
By Megan Scully CongressDaily October 31, 2007
House and Senate negotiators on the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill are at odds over a provision in the House-passed measure that would require the Navy to make its future fleet of surface combatants nuclear powered.
The Navy is building nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, but the House language would establish that it is the "policy of the United States" to use nuclear power for all major vessels, including destroyers and cruisers.
House Armed Services Seapower Subcommittee Chairman Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and ranking member Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., have long urged the Navy to use nuclear power on its large ships to save long-term fuel costs.
In a brief interview Tuesday, Taylor stressed that nuclear power would ultimately improve the Navy's effectiveness, safety and mobility by allowing ships to go long stretches at sea without having to refuel.
Nuclear-powered vessels have lower heat signatures, making them less vulnerable to heat-seeking missiles, added Taylor, whose district includes Northrop Grumman's Ingalls shipyard in Pascagoula, Miss., a nuclear-capable facility until 1980 that now builds only conventionally powered ships.
"I'm absolutely convinced that this is the right way to go," he said. "I'm also convinced that this is a generational opportunity and we'll all be dead and in our graves before another Congress has a chance to make a decision that is of this much importance to the Navy."
But opponents on Capitol Hill question whether the language is feasible, given the limited industrial capability to build nuclear-powered ships and tight procurement budgets. The up-front costs of nuclear-powered vessels are estimated at $600 million to $800 million more per ship than conventionally powered vessels.
"It is considerably more expensive to build a nuclear-powered ship in the first place," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a senior member of the Armed Services Committee. "Given that we are already underfunding shipbuilding, I'm concerned that that means we'll be further away from reaching the [Navy's] goal of a 313-ship fleet."
Collins, whose state is home to the General Dynamics Bath Iron Works shipyard, which builds conventionally powered ships, noted that a nuclear-powered vessel would require a larger crew than a conventionally-powered ship -- an issue that is at odds with the Navy's plans to reduce crew sizes on most of its ships.
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., another Armed Services Committee member and a former Navy secretary, said he generally supported using nuclear energy on large vessels, but was opposed to issuing a mandate to the Navy that the service may not be able to carry out.
"In theory I support it," Webb said. "The question is the practicality."
Only two shipbuilders are certified by the Navy to construct nuclear-powered ships: the Northrop Grumman Newport News facility in Virginia, capable of building aircraft carriers and submarines, and General Dynamics Electric Boat Division of Groton, Conn., and Quonset Point, R.I., which specializes in nuclear-powered subs.
A Navy study released this year concluded that the life-cycle costs for nuclear-powered ships would equal that of a conventionally powered ship if the cost of crude oil averages $70 to $225 per barrel over the life of a medium-sized ship. The current price per barrel is approximately $90.
"Everyone knows that the price of fuel is going to stay high and get higher," Taylor argued.
Taylor said he spoke Tuesday with House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, D-Mo., to reiterate the importance of the provision.
The Defense Department has urged conferees on the authorization measure to strike the entire House provision, arguing that the Navy needs to conduct a thorough analysis of each vessel before deciding whether nuclear power is appropriate.
"The department supports a process that includes a rigorous technical analysis of alternatives and matches requirements with operational demands of the warfighter for the projected threats," the department said in an appeal sent to lawmakers Oct. 9.
The House language, according to the Pentagon's appeal, would "more than likely result in unrealistic requirements for future combatant classes of ships."
The first ships that would be affected by the provision would be the 19 CG(X) cruisers the Navy plans to buy between fiscal 2011 and fiscal 2023. The provision also would affect the DDG(X), which the Navy will not start buying until the mid-2020s to replace its current fleet of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers.

[2ToneNavy]

I would love to see the return of nuclear powered surface ships other than carriers.  It would be in the best interest of the Navy given the rising fossil fuel costs.

The BIG issue as far as I see it is manpower...  that is QUALITY manpower.  Navy Nukes are nowhere near as knowledgable as they used to be.  Most have no clue how a nuclear reactor plant really works within months of qualifying at prototype.  To all of you former Navy nukes who struggled you a** off to get through Power School, you will be disapointed to know how students are given "fill in the blanks" notebooks (basically coloring books) and pretty much told with a nudge and a wink what will be on thier tests the night before.  Only the ones who can't keep up with the memorize & brain dump flow pattern fail out anymore.  As a former SPU at NPTU Ballston Spa I can tell you that what should be the hardest part of the pipeline is now a positive displacement pump with a little packing leakage (in other words, don't try to kill yourself or do drugs and you are sure to qualify, and the fleet receives another know-nothing idiot to man the watchbill)  Once to the ship, your department will be so undermanned your qual cards will be blazed off, you'll schedule your board with the guy who requires the least amount of cokes/dr. peppers and your supporting the watchbill.  Continuing training is viewed as a nuciense to getting maintenance done since you'll be about 30-40% manned, and the only time anyone really pays attention is the night before the CT Exam when the "gouge" is given out.  But hey, at least once a year, ORSE will force you to try to remember a little something about how a reactor plant works.

The current lack of prototype availability is a current issue, but it will take many years to catch up with the demands of the navy.  I only see the pipline "pushing" more medeocre sailors to the fleet to catch up, and making it easier to do so.

Please don't get me wrong, there are A LOT of Shining Star Sailors out there, thank God.  I just hope that their replacements learn from them.

But hey, if Congress funds the building of these new ship you'll see one happy camper over here.  I just hope it doesn't thin the already depleted nuclear fleet out too badly.

[Kev3399]

I would love to see the return of nuclear powered surface ships other than carriers.  It would be in the best interest of the Navy given the rising fossil fuel costs.

The BIG issue as far as I see it is manpower...  that is QUALITY manpower.  Navy Nukes are nowhere near as knowledgable as they used to be.  Most have no clue how a nuclear reactor plant really works within months of qualifying at prototype.  To all of you former Navy nukes who struggled you a** off to get through Power School, you will be disapointed to know how students are given "fill in the blanks" notebooks (basically coloring books) and pretty much told with a nudge and a wink what will be on thier tests the night before.  Only the ones who can't keep up with the memorize & brain dump flow pattern fail out anymore.  As a former SPU at NPTU Ballston Spa I can tell you that what should be the hardest part of the pipeline is now a positive displacement pump with a little packing leakage (in other words, don't try to kill yourself or do drugs and you are sure to qualify, and the fleet receives another know-nothing idiot to man the watchbill)  Once to the ship, your department will be so undermanned your qual cards will be blazed off, you'll schedule your board with the guy who requires the least amount of cokes/dr. peppers and your supporting the watchbill.  Continuing training is viewed as a nuciense to getting maintenance done since you'll be about 30-40% manned, and the only time anyone really pays attention is the night before the CT Exam when the "gouge" is given out.  But hey, at least once a year, ORSE will force you to try to remember a little something about how a reactor plant works.

The current lack of prototype availability is a current issue, but it will take many years to catch up with the demands of the navy.  I only see the pipline "pushing" more medeocre sailors to the fleet to catch up, and making it easier to do so.

Please don't get me wrong, there are A LOT of Shining Star Sailors out there, thank God.  I just hope that their replacements learn from them.

But hey, if Congress funds the building of these new ship you'll see one happy camper over here.  I just hope it doesn't thin the already depleted nuclear fleet out too badly.

Considering your inability to form an opinion with no less than 6 misspelled words I will somewhat disregard your exaggerations. Lack of ability still exists.(If you have documentation....Why does everyone pass? Lazy instructors who would rather pass a student on a watch then fill out the extra paperwork) I don't ever recall any "winks and nudges" during my instructor tour. As a matter of fact, instructors at the prototypes don't even know what is on the exams until they grade them. There are certain NECs manned at about 70% in the fleet, not 30-40%. Prototype manning is actually better than it was a few years back.(Really improved ELT numbers, not so much on the ET side) Anyone that says I'm wrong, hasn't been there. There are plenty of threads on this, so I won't beat the dead horse here.

Back on topic.........The root of all of this is politics. Is there the necessary political support to build these? I say yes and no. Are the politicians going to fork over the money? And to whom? These are the major roadblocks.

Overall I think it would be good for the Navy and the program. Progress is good and its about time for some new life to get injected into the surface nuclear navy. If I could have gone to a new nuclear cruiser precom, I might have taken it. If this does fly you won't see it until all the kinks are out of the DDX and CVNX programs. If they even happen......

[PWHoppe]

Let's remember to play nice, no dissing others opinions, or I'll be forced to apply the dreaded "delete post" option

your friendly neighborhood moderator 

[HydroDave63]

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

 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.

Since there is no present example AFAIK of a 'half-sized' version of a successful parent reactor design, and the FORD plant hasn't been prototyped yet, 2 major assumptions wired in series will most likely yield a design studied and funded and defunded to death over about 7 years...anyone remember the Centurion class subs or stealth A-12 successor to the A-6?

Building the CGN(x) at DDG-1000 yards will crimp the program building a lot of ships. Bath Iron Works in Maine is committed to both the LPD-17 program and DDG-1000. Pascagoula hasn't done nuclear since 1980, but would be a better fit for refit. Why do I say a refit? LPD-17s built at Avondale  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lpd-17-unit.htm  only need a short tow to Pascagoula to drop in Rx plants [ D2G type, going all electric generation would provide.... more than enough electricity @ 33% Rankine eff. to meet all electric loads stated for CGN(X), and already have lots of operational experience with them ], with a short dilation of schedules at Avondale.

DDG-1000 has the 2 (assumed) railguns for gunfire support (how much tactical support is a really fast chunk of metal if you are 50 yards from target?) of land forces. CGN(x) isn't going that close to shore. The bad guys shoot back, and taking hits on CGN(x) close to shore would be a bad idea. See  http://www.ussstoddard.org/vietnam67recollections.htm for the vulnerability of close support missions.

Yes, even CGN(x) should have at least 1 main gun, of the Advanced 155mm type (already existing ordnance, including binary chemical munitions and "special" , don't think the world won't go there, hollow point ammo has been banned by Hague Convention since 1899)

Why does CGN(x) need a LPD hull? Compare to the Kirov class hull dimensions in http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1144-specs.htm  and photos of Kirov http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/images/kirov-DNST8201245.JPG with the accommodation for the long SS-N-16 missiles. CGN(x) will need the long launchers for the BMD role, carrying the Kinetic Energy Interceptor missile in development now , see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CG(X) for the proposed mission of this fine ship.

Git-'er-done!!

[Mnemorath]

To the best of my knowledge, the Ford's plant will not be prototyped. All design work for her has been done on computers. Extensive modeling has been done. The Ford herself will be the prototype for the entire class.

[HydroDave63]

The Ford herself will be the prototype for the entire class.

Sadly the nuclear fleet has plenty of examples of first-of-a-kind flops....Triton, Narwhal, Seawolf 575, Long Beach, Bainbridge, Truxtun....

[landlubber]

Sadly the nuclear fleet has plenty of examples of first-of-a-kind flops....Triton, Narwhal, Seawolf 575, Long Beach, Bainbridge, Truxtun....

Hold on - The Triton, Narwhal, Seawolf (SSN-575), Bainbridge and Truxton all had land based prototypes for their power plants. So did the Tullibee, if we want to list flops.  The more important thing is to prototype the core, however; not the pipes and valves. The Los Angeles class propulsion plants were not prototyped, and that class has done okay

Also, from a previos post:

Since there is no present example AFAIK of a 'half-sized' version of a successful parent reactor design, and the FORD plant hasn't been prototyped yet, 2 major assumptions wired in series will most likely yield a design studied and funded and defunded to death over about 7 years...anyone remember the Centurion class subs or stealth A-12 successor to the A-6?

The Centurion turned into the USS VIRGINIA class, which the Navy brass LOVES, has legislated funding for the first 10, and the next batch is soon to be bid.

Back to the CGNX, I can't wait to see the Navy's Analysis of Alternatives that was due in September. I can smell the pork fryin' already.....

[rlbinc]

I don't think USS LONG BEACH was a flop. It was purpose built as an Enterprise escort. You will note the first fleet application of Phased Array Radar. That was the BIG BOX you see on the superstructure.
Aegis Missile Systems use what evolved from that Phased Array Radar.

USS LONG BEACH made one of the longest distance MiG splashes during the Cold War with a Talos missile.

On its earliest ships, the Navy had no idea what level of maintenance would be required as an ongoing investment. USS CHICAGO (CG-11) was its conventionally powered contemporary - and did not see as much use as USS LONG BEACH.
 

[LaFeet]

Sadly the nuclear fleet has plenty of examples of first-of-a-kind flops....Triton, Narwhal, Seawolf 575, Long Beach, Bainbridge, Truxtun....

Sorry Dave,  The Narwhal (SSN 671) was anything but a flop.  The Tullibee, Lipscomb, Jack, Seawolf (sodium core) were many subs that had innovative attempts, but failed as a whole.

 The Narwhal successfully served some 30+ years - refueling twice, the latter in the late 90s.   She had many successful design changes that have been incorporated into the Trident, Seawolf, and Virginia class submarines.

 I was fortunate enough to serve on the Narwhal. I also served on and aided many of the other "design platforms" that didnt really cut the mustard.

 Uncle Hymee loved everything about the Narwhal except the use of MASSIVE steam ejectors as cooling units (AKA MACs).  And I can attest that the Ruskies despised when we left port, even our guys could not find the Narpig.

 Here I go again.... ranting,  but I spent many a good year underwater on that boat.  And I know she was no flop.

 

[LaFeet]

 As a side note, the Narwhal was designed to be the FLEET boat..... one to take the battle to foreign seas and decimate foreign fleets.  She was supposed to be a one -two package with the Tullibee defending the coastal waters.  Unfortunately the Tullibee kept growing forward without an increase in propulsion capabilities.

 Although a poor performer, Tullibee had outstanding features.   Originally designed to deploy with a scant 65 man crew (We never left with fewer than 100 while I was on board SSN 597), Tullibee was first to use advanced SONAR and angled torpedo tubes.  She incorporated extensive sound isolation techniques that was improved upon and used in subsequent classes. Her drive train was the quietest until the Narwahl arrived. 

 I went from 5 years on Narwhal to the Tullibee (Cadillac to Yugo feeling) and still have no regrets.

[shayne]

Refresh my memory.  S5G (Idaho) was the prototype for Narwhal???

[LaFeet]

Yes, S5G was the prototype in Idaho for the Narwhal.  It was a HUGE ketchup bottle in a basin.

[HydroDave63]

Yes, S5G was the prototype in Idaho for the Narwhal.  It was a HUGE ketchup bottle in a basin.

which rattled nicely during the Challis earthquake in Oct 1983..

http://www.visitidaho.org/thingstodo/natural-attractions/challis-earthquake-fault-line.aspx

[LaFeet]

which rattled nicely during the Challis earthquake in Oct 1983..

Cant comment on this, have to take their word for it.... I think I was a bit busy up north during that time.....Ivan was busy back then, so were we on the Narpig

[number41]

I'll put it to you guys like this: 
Me: When do we think we'll be seeing new nuclear powered cruisers/destroyers?"
NAVSEA-08 CMC:  "Within 4-6 years we'll be building them. The admiral has spoken to congress on this matter alot lately.  And frankly, the Congress is tired of the U.S. taxpayer paying $3.00 a gallon for fuel for these things (non-nuke surface ships)"

This conversation was on Thursday, 24 Jan.  Of course, the NAVSEA-08 CMC isn't in the know on ALL policy, but I think that his insider's gouge is as good as anyone's.  Of course, with election year coming-up, nobody really knows much of any thing with regards to something this big.

[JustinHEMI05]

I'll put it to you guys like this: 
Me: When do we think we'll be seeing new nuclear powered cruisers/destroyers?"
NAVSEA-08 CMC:  "Within 4-6 years we'll be building them. The admiral has spoken to congress on this matter alot lately.  And frankly, the Congress is tired of the U.S. taxpayer paying $3.00 a gallon for fuel for these things (non-nuke surface ships)"

This conversation was on Thursday, 24 Jan.  Of course, the NAVSEA-08 CMC isn't in the know on ALL policy, but I think that his insider's gouge is as good as anyone's.  Of course, with election year coming-up, nobody really knows much of any thing with regards to something this big.

Does he expect me to believe that the government pays less for gas than I do? LOL I am sure they pay at least 4 times what I do. Sorry, couldn't help myself.

Justin

[number41]

I don't think the government WILLFULLY pays less for gas than you Justin.  It's just that Uncle Sam doesn't have to pay $0.76/gal in taxes when he buys gas!  Dirty Rat Ba$tards!!!!

[Marlin]

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.

Speaking of rail guns.

[ddklbl]

Speaking of rail guns.

Hi Res image of the 10 Mjoule test fire earlier this month.

Video link to the test fire.

[taterhead]

From the San Diego Union-Tribune today...


Nuclear Ships Could Make a Comback
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20080207-9999-1n7nuke.html

[withroaj]

"In many ways the Big Boy never left us, sir.  He's always offered the same quality meals at competitive prices."

So I haven't fact checked this in the weeks since I read it, but the story came out in the last couple of weeks.  I found it at either the Sub Report or at bubbleheads.blogspot.com.  Congress has indeed ordered a new set of CG's including one 25k Ton "Super Cruiser" that is supposed to run on nuclear power.  I believe the article came from news.navy.mil or some other credible location.  You're right, I should probably fact check before I post here, but this is the internet and credibility is optional.

As for quality manning in the NNPP, what can I say?  Retention isn't exactly strong and we lose a lot of good guys to the more lucrative civilian sector.  The SNOB community seems more attractive than the Nayvee and most guys get out too burned out on nuclear BS to even consider a job at a plant in the real world.  Waste of six years if you ask me.  It seems that 90k to take a shore duty attracts more guys who want a new truck or motorcycle than good operators.  In fact, on the boat we only have three sea returnee nukes that aren't CPO's (and only one CPO per division and an EDMC).  If anyone out there has any idea how to improve NNPP retention besides just throwing more money at the problem let me know.  I'm still in for at least a couple more years and I will be sure to pass the word along.  For those of you that work in commercial power generation and like your jobs, especially the ex-Navy folks, let me know what makes the job fulfilling.  My current contract will take me through shore duty and I'm really on the fence as to what to do after that.  If this program could somehow be improved I would love nothing more than to stick around, but I don't really see the trend headed in the right direction.  Maybe it's just wierd to hear a kid with six months on board say something starting with "When I was junior..."

Our E-Div chief ran the remedial reading program at NNPTC when he didn't have a class.  That's right.  Remedial reading.  Some kids got into the nuclear field without an eighth grade reading level, so they actually made a fast-track reading program to get them up to speed.  Thank god for that.  To be honest it's good to know that we have the best and brightest out there standing watch, and that by the time they get to a ship they should even be able to the read the procedures they work out of.

And I am waaaay off topic now.  Sorry about that.  CGN's coming back? I heard yes.  That's really what I had to say.

[Gamecock]

http://www.sname.org/AM2007/papers/D39.pdf


Light reading IRT to the future of nuclear surface ships.

[Marlin]

Thanks, very interesting. For those of you who want the "Cliff Notes" version, there is a Findings and Conclusions section near the end and you can skip the how we derived the data in the study sections.

[matthew.b]

If they use 1/2 Ford for the plant, this will be the first single reactor surface ship, right?

The plant on it's own is clearly reliable enough, given that a lot of submarines are totally dependent on one unit for their survival.  I just assumed that two units were considered necessary due to the far greater chance of battle damage that skimmers have.  Although it would be "interesting" for the crew carrying on dozens of feet away from a holed primary if one ever took a hit to the RC.

[LaFeet]

Our E-Div chief ran the remedial reading program at NNPTC when he didn't have a class.  That's right.  Remedial reading.  Some kids got into the nuclear field without an eighth grade reading level, so they actually made a fast-track reading program to get them up to speed. 

How far have we fallen from the 80s

[withroaj]

How far have we fallen from the 80s

I bet you'd say that for a lot more reasons than just the nuke program taking in "kids who can't read good, but want to learn to read good and to do other stuff good, too."  I am sure that you have heard about the new training format in the pipeline.  I heard from all of the old salty sea dogs that you guys would have a chalk board in the front of the room, an instructor teaching the material, and the responsibility to take solid notes if you wanted to make it through the school.  Now (five years ago anyway, I don't imagine it could have gotten too much worse since then) they have fill-in-the-blanks power point presentations:

High speed, low torque from turbines is converted to shaft speed, high torque using _________________.

There's also the idea (probably misconception) I have that you guys back in the day spent more time focusing on doing your jobs RIGHT than you did making sure you sounded formal enough.  I heard a rumor from our EMC that you guys used to be able to say "ten."

I guess the deteriorating state of the standards/program is a topic for another post.  Maybe it isn't.  If we're going to build more nuke powered ships we'll need people to man them.  For some reason I don't think many of you commercial operators are going to come out of retirement/separation just to get back on a cruiser.

I have an idea.  Let's retrofit the IOWA-class Battleships with those sweet rail guns and A4W plants.  I'll be first in line to be on the crew of the Mightier Mo'.  It may be an obsolete platform, but what ship really has a better power projection appearance?

[Marlin]

How far have we fallen from the 80s

And even farther from the early 70s. I have defended the program in the past as being cyclic driven by the needs of the Navy but I would have never expected a remedial reading program. With the potential to expand the number of people in the pipeline to accommodate a potential increase of nuclear ships into cruisers and even the troop transport assault ships, I have to wonder how far it will go. Technology is putting much higher demands on power in the surface fleet of the future making the nuclear option more likely according to the White Paper above.

[Preciousblue1965]

I can say that the handwritten notes were still in effect at least through 1998.  Took 5 months after NPS to get that dang callus on my finger to go down from writing all the notes.  Usually ended up writing them at least twice, first time when the instructor put them up, the second time so you could actually read them. 

That doesn't even begin to compare to the new CACs at Prototype.  Computer programs that explain how the system works, shows general location of components, THEN GIVES THE CHECKOUT to the student.  Student still has to go to a Staff member to finish it and get it signed but if you know how to work the system you can get through those without knowing anything. 

[arduousartifice]

I can say that the handwritten notes were still in effect at least through 1998.  Took 5 months after NPS to get that dang callus on my finger to go down from writing all the notes.  Usually ended up writing them at least twice, first time when the instructor put them up, the second time so you could actually read them. 

That doesn't even begin to compare to the new CACs at Prototype.  Computer programs that explain how the system works, shows general location of components, THEN GIVES THE CHECKOUT to the student.  Student still has to go to a Staff member to finish it and get it signed but if you know how to work the system you can get through those without knowing anything. 

Before I started the pipeline I had a writing callus that got considerably smaller during the pipeline (04-05).  I took to recopying my notes to prepare for tests, just so I had at least written everything once.  In this case, the old way is probably a better way, at least it forces you to pay attention in class, or stay extra late getting the notes from someone who did.

CACs are indeed a waste of resources, I believe I learned less at prototype because of them (to use a tired phrase, there were many ways to beat the CAC).  But what you describe sounds like a fusion of the coloring books, the RPM, and the CACs, unless the CACs have gotten bigger (I'll ask around).

[Preciousblue1965]

CACs pretty much were a fusion of things.  They were only limited to a number of questions, and depending on your rate and which one you took, they might ask 1,2, or just 3 questions.  all you really had to do was have a decent memory and you could memorize the questions and the computer provided answers on the first run and try it again in two hours if you failed it.  Don't know how many students I had say "well that wasn't on the CAC" when I would ask them a question.  They were a good tool for students to use to get some visual explanation but Protohell relied too much on them for training.  They were even making the Staff guys take them for Forward Watchstation quals when I left. 

[withroaj]

The greatest thing about the CACs was what they said about them in BIT school.  The PMC actually told our group that instructors weren't utilizing the CACs well enough; that we were supposed to review that print out that came with the barcode, and ask the questions that they failed, sign their book and send them on their way.  By the time I left there (Dec '05) there was a CAC for every system.  They don't extend beyond that now, do they?  Maybe a CAC for watches.  3A1:  answer six questions and you are ready to shut down.

[Preciousblue1965]

When I left there in late '06, there were CACs for every system.  You will find varying opinions about how effective the CACs are and how much more the student needs to know.  Usually it is divided between actual instructors on crew and those whose job performance is based on the # of students ahead of the curve.  I refused to use the CAC as a tell all, end all method of testing student knowledge since they could pass it without ever going to the boat or drawing the system. 

They were just starting to use CACs for Staff quals for the forward watches.  They were not required per se, but you did have to pass every one of them before you did your final exam for the watchstation.  I think they were just about to make them necessary for the system checkout when I left.  I FULLY expect that within the next two to three years that they will have the majority of the students qual card can be done via CAC instead of dealing with a real staff instructor, the only exception being standing watches and prac facs.  Then again they could always just have them respond to a drill by "clicking" on the valves you are supposed to operate during a casualty.  Thus the NNPP takes another swirl down the virtual toilet.

[withroaj]

Well, I did some poking around due to genuine interest into the new nuke surface (surr-fah-chay) ships, and I found some old info that might bring this thread back from the degrading state of the pipeline to the initial topic.

Ford Class Carriers
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf

Nuke Cruisers
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33946.pdf

[Preciousblue1965]

. . . I found some old info that might bring this thread back from the degrading state of the pipeline to the initial topic.

Now why would you want to go and do a thing like that?

[withroaj]

I think the degrading state of the pipeline could go into 'how would you fix the NNPP' and keep that topic going.

[HighOctane23]

Has anyone heard anything about this recently. Being that the last post was in 2008, it seems like the idea of a nuclear powered surface Navy just kind of died off. Any news about it lately?

[Marlin]

Has anyone heard anything about this recently. Being that the last post was in 2008, it seems like the idea of a nuclear powered surface Navy just kind of died off. Any news about it lately?

Uncertain budget probably makes it less likely than in the past. Certainly so if Sequestration occurs (unlikely).

[MacGyver]

Uncertain budget probably makes it less likely than in the past. Certainly so if Sequestration occurs (unlikely).

Allow me to translate.

[HydroDave63]

Eeen Rossiya, better to run out of money, than missiles...

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Developing_Multipurpose_issile_Launchers_for_Brand_New_Warships_999.html

The nuclear-powered Leader-class destroyer is planned to be equipped with more than 200 silo-based missiles of different class. It is meant to replace the Sovremennyy-class destroyer, the Udaloy I class and the Slava-class cruiser.

[spekkio]

While that's impressive on paper, 3x 96 missiles > 1x 200 thanks to reactor plant costs (and increased manning costs to pay more nukes). Of course, Russia had demonstrated that it doesn't always care much for safe reactor plant operations so may be able to afford a similar amount anyway, but thankfully we do.

There's also the military advantage that all of the firepower isn't concentrated in one spot. In Russia's case a combat kill will disable a greater portion of their overall firepower.