Are nuclear surface ships coming back?

[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.