http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2354833&C=america
New Committee Chair Wants More Ships, Nuclear Power
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS, Pascagoula, Miss.
The prospective incoming chairman of an influential U.S. congressional military subcommittee has no difficulty summing up his priorities.
“Shipbuilding, shipbuilding. Getting the numbers of the fleet up,” said Gene Taylor, the Democratic representative who counts among his constituents Northrop Grumman’s sprawling Ingalls shipyard here on the Gulf of Mexico. “Numbers do matter.”
Taylor, ranking member of the House Armed Services projection forces subcommittee, eagerly said Nov. 11 he would seek to chair the committee as Democrats prepare to take over the House and Senate from Republican control.
The Democratic congressional leadership could decide as early as Nov. 16 on committee chairmanships.
The projection forces subcommittee, whose recommendations on major Pentagon acquisition programs form the basis of each year’s House defense authorization bill, has been led by Maryland Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, who focused on major U.S. Navy projects such as the DD(X)/DDG 1000 destroyer, the Littoral Combat Ship and new submarine and aircraft carrier shipbuilding programs.
Taylor emphasized he too would focus on building up the Navy’s fleet. Asked if he supported the Navy’s planned seven-ship buy for DDG 1000, Taylor said “I think we can do better.”
“As the ships perform — they’re magnificently made, they perform magnificently — as the Navy sees these assets my hunch is they’re going to ask for more and I plan on being in position to help them get more,” he said.
Taylor also echoed another of Bartlett’s favorite themes: Taking another look at nuclear propulsion for Navy surface ships to lessen the country’s dependence on foreign sources of energy.
Although all new Navy aircraft carriers and submarines are nuclear-powered, the service decommissioned its fleet of nine nuclear cruiser carrier escorts in the mid-1990s as too expensive to maintain or build, and most surface ships built since then have been powered by gas turbines. But Taylor said he would hold hearings to re-examine the idea.
“The Achilles heel of the American military — and it’s nothing that our enemies don’t already know — is fuel,” he said.
“Adm. [Hyman] Rickover [a Navy champion for nuclear-powered ships from the 1940s to 1980s] had us well on our way in the early 1960s to a fleet that didn’t count on foreign countries for its fuel,” Taylor said. “And even back then the country produced more than half its fuel. Now that we produce way less than half of our fuel it just makes abundant sense that one of the ways we can cut our dependence on foreign oil is to build as many surface ships as we can — even some of the smaller ones — that have nuclear power.”
Taylor noted that the DDG 1000 is too far along to effect changes in its power source — construction of the first two ships will be ordered in 2007 — but he is looking squarely at the follow-on design planned by the Navy, the CG(X) cruiser variant of the DDG design. The service plans to order its first CG(X) in 2011.
“That’s still in the mix,” Taylor said of the CG(X).
“So one of my challenges — and I feel pretty confident that I’ll have the assistance of Congressman Bartlett on the Republican side — is to see that that generation of ships and all subsequent generations of ships are nuclear-powered.”
And if the Navy doesn’t want to build more DDG 1000 destroyers?
“If the Navy says they’re ready to move on to CG(X), and it’s going to be nuclear-powered, then I’m going to be there with them,” declared Taylor.
So I guess a question I have is how much does a reactor cost compared to 30 yrs worth of fuel for a 100,000shp or so ship?
By: Turbinia - 27th November 2006 at 14:35
That’s a fair point, the only problem is that with the current USN budget (and let’s remember that’s a budget every other navy in the world is green with envy over) their operational capability would evaporate as they wouldn’t have enough ships if they decided to go for a nuclear powered surface fleet. Plus they still need replenishment at sea, and the price of nuclear freighters is just not realistic.
By: Phelgan - 27th November 2006 at 12:47
The energy requirements of the entire Department of Defense are miniscule compared to the sum total of consumer demand.
Building nuclear powered surface combatants will do almost nothing to “cut our dendence on foreign oil.”
No, its not going to reduce the US’s dependance on foriegn fuel, but presumably the aim is to prevent hamstringing of the navy operations away from home? e.g. for whatever reason, you find the ports of the Gulf States closed to USN shipping. You have a better capability for maintaining a presence without that support and without relying on tankers from further afield.
By: Turbinia - 27th November 2006 at 00:21
Power is not a limiting factor for nuclear reactor design. Commercial power generating reactors are available in power outputs more than adequate for any marine application, including modern high efficiency compact reactors. However a warship may well use two reactors for system redundancy and operational flexibility. The good thing about steam turbines is that power is not the usually a problem, the limiting factor is the amount of power the shafts can absorb and the evaporation rate of the steam generators but the turbines themselves will produce as much power as the available steam will allow. So a vessel the size of a DD(X) could easily use a single reactor if that’s what the designers decided to go for, if the USN ever is serious about nuclear powered surface combatants then there will be reactors designed around the requirements. My own view is that two is sensible anyway, although my view is that for frigates and destroyers alternatives like gas turbines and diesels make far more sense.
By: sferrin - 26th November 2006 at 20:05
A surface combatant of CG(X) size might require two reactors, whereas even an SSBN normally requires only one.
Don’t forget you’ve also got the reactor on the Nimitz class you could use (but at 140,000shp or so it’s probably more suited to a Kirov-sized ship). The S6G in the Ohio is good for 60,000shp and the S6W of the Seawolfs is at 52,000shp though so you’re probably right there.
By: Arabella-Cox - 26th November 2006 at 15:06
Really, I believe the USN needs a economical and stealthy replacement for the Perry Class FFG’s……… Scooter
Yes I agree Scooter about the Perry Class FFG’s!
I think that again, the US Navy has forgotten the hard-learned lessons of naval combat, and the importance of cheaper and smaller merchant ship escorts. For again as is fashionable with the US Navy, they have gone down the path of bigger and more costly ships that will do everything (but can not be everywhere!)
Hopefully if they come up with an Oliver Hazard Perry Class replacement, it will have two drive-shafts!Regards
Pioneer
A cheap Stealthy Frigate armed with say Evolved Sea Sparrows, RAM, 3 or 5 inch guns, Harpoons, and Helos would provide a very flexible platform. Further, it could escort merchant vessel or amphibious assault ships and show the flag in place of the Larger Destroyers and Cruisers! While the USN wouldn’t need or want large numbers. They could find a place and provide allies with a capable ship at a modest price……………IMO
By: Pioneer - 26th November 2006 at 13:51
Really, I believe the USN needs a economical and stealthy replacement for the Perry Class FFG’s……… Scooter
Yes I agree Scooter about the Perry Class FFG’s!
I think that again, the US Navy has forgotten the hard-learned lessons of naval combat, and the importance of cheaper and smaller merchant ship escorts. For again as is fashionable with the US Navy, they have gone down the path of bigger and more costly ships that will do everything (but can not be everywhere!)
Hopefully if they come up with an Oliver Hazard Perry Class replacement, it will have two drive-shafts!
Regards
Pioneer
By: TinWing - 25th November 2006 at 17:41
The size of marine geared turbines or turbo-electric drive is not an unknown quantity and they’re comparable in size to a GT of similar power. And you can get a good idea of the size of modern reactors if you look at submarine power packages, which are compact and highly rated, but substantially bigger than an equivalent GT and frighteningly expensive.
A surface combatant of CG(X) size might require two reactors, whereas even an SSBN normally requires only one.
Costs will indeed be daunting, but so will the space and weigth requirements. The DDG-1000 is designed around a reasonable compact gas turbine/alternator IFEP setup, and a two reactor, turbo-electric setup will surely require a substantial redesign and perhaps even an increase in hull dimensions.
It also goes without saying that CG(X) will also have a far more extensive electronics and missile fit than the DDG-1000. Add together the costs of nuclear propulsion and AAW capabilities, and you might just have a ship that will come close to the first unit costs equivilent to a repeat production CVN.
By: PMN1 - 24th November 2006 at 22:26
Some comments from another board.
http://p216.ezboard.com/fwarships1discussionboardsfrm12.showMessage?topicID=1290.topic
By: Turbinia - 24th November 2006 at 22:13
The size of marine geared turbines or turbo-electric drive is not an unknown quantity and they’re comparable in size to a GT of similar power. And you can get a good idea of the size of modern reactors if you look at submarine power packages, which are compact and highly rated, but substantially bigger than an equivalent GT and frighteningly expensive.
By: sferrin - 24th November 2006 at 19:51
It is easy to get data on gas turbines, but there is very little public information on military marine nuclear reactors. So, how do you establish a baseline comparision?
On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to expect that a nuclear powerplant can fit into an oversized 14,000+ ton hull.
As Bainbridge and Truxtun were about 9,000 tons with 60s tech. I’d think fitting the required amount of power in the hull would be a no-brainer. It comes down to lifetime costs. Also factor in the reduced need of fleet refueling ships as more surface ships are nuclear powered. Personally I think intertia will keep nuclear power out of the surface fleet but we can always hope I suppose.
By: TinWing - 24th November 2006 at 19:00
“The Achilles heel of the American military — and it’s nothing that our enemies don’t already know — is fuel,” he said.
“Adm. [Hyman] Rickover [a Navy champion for nuclear-powered ships from the 1940s to 1980s] had us well on our way in the early 1960s to a fleet that didn’t count on foreign countries for its fuel,” Taylor said. “And even back then the country produced more than half its fuel. Now that we produce way less than half of our fuel it just makes abundant sense that one of the ways we can cut our dependence on foreign oil is to build as many surface ships as we can — even some of the smaller ones — that have nuclear power.”
The energy requirements of the entire Department of Defense are miniscule compared to the sum total of consumer demand.
Building nuclear powered surface combatants will do almost nothing to “cut our dendence on foreign oil.”
By: sealordlawrence - 24th November 2006 at 18:50
What are you talking about?
Dont tell me that you havnt looked at the DDG-21 and thought hmmmm ‘Star destroyer’. 😉
By: TinWing - 24th November 2006 at 18:50
With regard to power plant size, it’s hard to see a nuclear power plant being smaller than a gas turbine plant as one of the very real advantages of a gas turbine over alternatives is low size and power/weight ratio. True new generation nuclear plant is much more efficient, but it still needs the primary/secondary heat exchangers, steam turbines and associated plant and probably either gearboxes or electric transmission.
It is easy to get data on gas turbines, but there is very little public information on military marine nuclear reactors. So, how do you establish a baseline comparision?
On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to expect that a nuclear powerplant can fit into an oversized 14,000+ ton hull.
The real issue is cost.
The USN built 3 separate, singleton, one-off nuclear powered cruisers and then built a total of 6 series production nuclear propelled cruisers. The USN had been correct to approach nuclear propulsion with such great caution in the 1960s, was correct again to halt production at the end of the 1970s, and was correct again when the last of the nuclear powered cruisers was retired early in the mid-90s.
In all likelihood, nuclear power for surface combatants was just as uneconomic in 1980 as it was in 1960, and remains unaffordable today.
By: sferrin - 24th November 2006 at 18:40
What the USN needs to do is scale back its ambitions and stop trying to replicate scenes from star wars.
What are you talking about?
By: sferrin - 24th November 2006 at 18:39
Hopefully if the US Navy goes back to building nuclear-powered ships, it gets over its problem of these ships growing in size, displacement and hence financial blow outs in costs – hence the potential of good numbers are always effected.
For example – the Long Beach (CGN-9) was originally intended to be 7,800 ton standard,
but it grossed out at 14,200 ton standard. (note- granted it was the first
nuclear ship of its kind – an experiment / prototype)With today’s technology, in nuclear reactors (power, core life and size), vertical-launch weapon/missile magazines (that do away with the heavy, slow and cumbersome missile launchers and magazines of old) and smaller, lighter and more powerful electronics, the US Navy should be able to build a true nuclear-powered Destroyer sized escort, that will minimize the need of larger, heavier and more costly Cruisers.
Who knows, the US Navies attempts at a nuclear-powered Frigate, of old, may be no larger than a true frigate!Regards
Pioneer
You have to keep in mind that with Long Beach it wasn’t the reactor’s fault. Try shoving 172 27ft-32ft missiles on a ship and not have it get big. It had 120 Terrier/SM-2ER and 52 Talos on board. They’d also planned to put 8 Polaris SLBM silos amidships and then changed that to Regulus 2 and ultimately ended up sticking an ASROC box and 2 5″ guns there.
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th November 2006 at 18:12
I wouldnt bet money on the design not coming with the ability to function reasonably well in the blue water environment. What the USN needs to do is scale back its ambitions and stop trying to replicate scenes from star wars.
Which, is why I favor a simplier yet stealthy frigate for the masses…………. :rolleyes:
By: sealordlawrence - 24th November 2006 at 18:07
True………………Yet, the LCS wouldn’t be ideal for blue water operations? Further, a Stealthy Frigate could be widely exported……… :rolleyes:
I wouldnt bet money on the design not coming with the ability to function reasonably well in the blue water environment. What the USN needs to do is scale back its ambitions and stop trying to replicate scenes from star wars.
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th November 2006 at 18:04
They have got it, its called the Littoral Combat Ship. 😉
True………………Yet, the LCS wouldn’t be ideal for blue water operations? Further, a Stealthy Frigate could be widely exported……… :rolleyes:
By: sealordlawrence - 24th November 2006 at 17:54
Really, I believe the USN needs a economical and stealthy replacement for the Perry Class FFG’s……… :rolleyes:
They have got it, its called the Littoral Combat Ship. 😉
By: Arabella-Cox - 24th November 2006 at 17:07
Really, I believe the USN needs a economical and stealthy replacement for the Perry Class FFG’s……… :rolleyes:
Sign In
November 14, 2006 at 3:02 pm