The U.S. Going Back to Nuclear Powered Surface Ships?

In a less concrete sense, one also has to consider that a nuke surface ship is likely a more desirable target to any enemy, regardless of that vessel's size. A nuclear ship sinking would be a PR boon to an enemy and must never be allowed to occur. So, now you have a nuke cruiser designed to escort and protect a nuke aircraft carrier. You still need a large contingency of conventional destroyers, right? Meanwhile, a parallel design for a conventionally powered cruiser is going on to fill the ballistic missile defense role?

Actually I believe the legislation signed mandates that all new surface vessels that are destroyers or larger be nuclear powered.

It should be noted that modern US destroyers are in a tonnage class that would actually be better described as a "light cruiser" - around 10,000 tons. And our current crop of Aegis cruisers (the Ticonderoga class) are actually built on a destroyer (Spruance) hull.

It appears CGN(X) will be closer to a traditional cruiser, in displacement and hull form. The last cruiser the US built on a traditional "cruiser hull" was CGN-9 Long Beach, launched in 1959, also the first of the nuclear cruisers.

reply to post by xmotex


All cruisers and up in that Bill. They left destroyers alone. Depending upon how you read it, it also mandates electric propulsion. Just to spin up the battleship fanboys, they included a BB reference in there, too.

SEC. 1012

a) Integrated Nuclear Power Systems- It is the policy of the United States to construct the major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy, including all new classes of such vessels, with integrated nuclear power systems.

(b) Requirement to Request Nuclear Vessels- If a request is submitted to Congress in the budget for a fiscal year for construction of a new class of major combatant vessel for the strike forces of the United States, the request shall be for such a vessel with an integrated nuclear power system, unless the Secretary of Defense submits with the request a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in such vessel is not in the national interest.

(c) Definitions- In this section:

(1) MAJOR COMBATANT VESSELS OF THE STRIKE FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY- The term `major combatant vessels of the strike forces of the United States Navy' means the following:

(A) Submarines.

(B) Aircraft carriers.

(C) Cruisers, battleships, or other large surface combatants whose primary mission includes protection of carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, and vessels comprising a sea base.

(2) INTEGRATED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEM- The term `integrated nuclear power system' means a ship engineering system that uses a naval nuclear reactor as its energy source and generates sufficient electric energy to provide power to the ship's electrical loads, including its combat systems and propulsion motors.

Mod Edit: Important: Using content from other websites on ATS. Please review this link

[edit on 12-3-2008 by GAOTU789]

Thanks for the correction, for some reason I thought it was destroyers and up.

The bit about electric is interesting and important as well - with directed energy weapons & railguns beginning to become practical, I think it's a good move.

Originally posted by xmotex
Thanks for the correction, for some reason I thought it was destroyers and up.

You were right, Sen Taylor recently called upon expanding the DDG hull to accept a nuclear propulsion plant for future hulls. He also advocated buying way more of them than the Navy wants. All this at the cost of the DDX future purchases

reply to post by xmotex


Producing power for those is no problem with exisitng reactor plant technology. The obstacle is turning that electricity into forward motion for a vessel of this size and desired speed.

reply to post by COOL HAND


By DDG, does he mean DDG-51 or DDG-1000 hulls? Either way, that's a tight fit.

EDIT: Just found this article [external link] on his idea. He wants to squeeze one A1B reactor into a DDG hullform? Seriously? CNO Admiral Roughead doesn't think it will fit, either and he's been through new construction of an Arleigh Burke.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by oxillini]

Well I believe the DDX's are already set to use the "electric ship" concept.

Electric motors for surface ships are not a new thing, most modern large cruise ships use electric motors in azipods rather than direct drive with propeller shafts - including the 76,000 ton 30 knot Queen Mary II.

Additionally they can be made quite quiet compared to direct-drive, an additional advantage for any ship engaging in ASW missions.

Also, a nuclear powered surface vessel in a Burke-sized hull is not that hard to imagine. Bainbridge (CGN-25) was 100 tons lighter than her CODOG powered Burke-class namesake (DDG-96) is.

Originally posted by xmotex
Well I believe the DDX's are already set to use the "electric ship" concept.

They are.

Additionally they can be made quite quiet compared to direct-drive, an additional advantage for any ship engaging in ASW missions.

The jury is still out on that one.

Also, a nuclear powered surface vessel in a Burke-sized hull is not that hard to imagine. Bainbridge (CGN-25) was 100 tons lighter than her CODOG powered Burke-class namesake (DDG-96) is.

DDG-96 is not CODOG powered. She is strictly Gas Turbine.

Research, it can be a powerful thing.

DDG-96 is not CODOG powered. She is strictly Gas Turbine.

D'oh!

You are correct.

Not sure where I got that idea.

Originally posted by oxillini
In a less concrete sense, one also has to consider that a nuke surface ship is likely a more desirable target to any enemy, regardless of that vessel's size. A nuclear ship sinking would be a PR boon to an enemy and must never be allowed to occur. So, now you have a nuke cruiser designed to escort and protect a nuke aircraft carrier. You still need a large contingency of conventional destroyers, right? Meanwhile, a parallel design for a conventionally powered cruiser is going on to fill the ballistic missile defense role?

Oxillini,
YOu do know that the surrounding fleet ships and the doctrine is for the surface ships to run the screen for the carriers till they can get thier aircraft off the deck..correct?? In otherwords they are to take the hits for the carriers...till the aircraft can get off the deck. This was true even back in the days of nuclear cruisers. and also the Bainbridge. It was also the case in the days of the CGN nuclear cruisers.
While it is not usually admitted in public these surface ships in a crunch are considered expendable in order to protect the carriers. Nuclear or not.

By the way, I saw the hull of the Savannah some time last fall. THey move her around this harbor to spread the pier costs about town. I believe she is ported in the Idle fleet up in the James River on occasion. This ship has a distinctive apperence in the day of containerized cargo ships.

I also saw the Long Beach in for decomissioning here in Virginia. She left here looking very much different from whence she entered.

Anyone know precisely how many nuclear submarines the Soviets/Russians have lost over the years. For some reason 7 to nine seems to ring a bell. I know that we have lost two.
I wonder what the count is in the waters close to those boats on the bottom of Neptune's Realm.

Just some random thoughts,
Orangetom

reply to post by xmotex


The "BrainDamage" DLGN/CGN-25 was a nightmare to work on from everyone I know who worked on her. Did they get two reactors on her, yes. Was it a good layout? Not from what many have said. Regardless, the question on the DDG-51 isn't whether a reactor plant (or two) would fit, it's whether the Gerlad R Ford's reactor would fit. I say it will not and even in the slim chance it did, the ship could never use much of that power. It's a waste. It's a V-10 in a VW. Both are known quantities, but that doesn't automatically mean you can use them together.

As for electric drive, I'm sure it can be done, but I question why. Senator Taylor's argument is that using existing designs allows for a faster ship acquisition schedule. Well, throwing an electric drive in their that no one is building right now can't do anything to help speed that acquisition cycle. Also, how much quieter is it?

Originally posted by xmotex
It appears CGN(X) will be closer to a traditional cruiser, in displacement and hull form. The last cruiser the US built on a traditional "cruiser hull" was CGN-9 Long Beach, launched in 1959, also the first of the nuclear cruisers.

They discussed the Long Beach a little in the Sea Classics article; it’s a pretty funky looking ship. Now it sits about 20 miles from me at the Bremerton Ship Yards, they have a nuclear recycling program there. The Russians had a go with nuke powered battle cruisers, the Kirov-class. I guess they were all failures.

This is an excerpt about the Long Beach from Sea Classics, April 08.

Sticker shock on these huge ships was overwhelmed by the arguments in favor of nuclear power that enamored the surface Navy, it was the guided missile. The 17,525-ton full load Long Beach was armed with two twin Terrier missile launchers forward; a Talos missile launcher aft; a single Regulus missile amidships; six 21-in torpedo tubes; and ASROC for ASW. Soon after the Long Beach put to sea, it was noticed that a small missile or torpedo boat could sink the cruiser because the Long Beach had no guns to ward off small craft. Accordingly, two WWII era 5-in/.38-cal guns were added amidships to deal with small craft. As the ship aged, its armament was improved to include 20mm Phalanx CIWS; two quad Harpoon anti-ship missile batteries and more modern SAM batteries. The Regulus missile was quickly removed as it was obsolete when installed aboard the cruiser. However, the march of Technology was too fast for the Long Beach, and as its systems were hard wired, there was little opportunity to incorporate AGEIS and other modern technological advances. She was decommissioned on 1 May 1995, and inactivated though the nuclear recycling program in Bremerton, Washington.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by jojoKnowsBest]