Are nuclear surface ships coming back?

[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.