Possibility small STOVL carrier USN/USMC

[KamenRiderBlade]

... Our US carriers aren't anywhere near Panamax standards. ...

Uh yeah ... BUT CVNs sail at 35 plus mph in rough seas for a range of ... well a range of ... umm .. ? ...25 years?

And LHDs ... uh ... don't :) They sort of need to be closer to where they are going ... before the rowers arms get tired. :D

BP

Interesting note: A CVN can almost get from Norfolk VA to Hawaii around South America faster than the LHD/A can through the Panama canal, and can get to Australia much (days) faster. (and at 9500 nm range the LHD/A will have to hit the tanker) Super Carriers ARE FAST !!! (if they don't have to wait on their stupid high speed cruiser/destroyer escorts or can pick up new ones relayed on the run).

The rest of the Navy's surface fleet needs to go nuclear

Save all the fuel space in the hulls.

Nuclear Cruisers, Nuclear Destroyers, etc.

[popcorn]

The rest of the Navy's surface fleet needs to go nuclear

Save all the fuel space in the hulls.

Nuclear Cruisers, Nuclear Destroyers, etc.

Perhaps you can reflect on why the USN did not pursue an all-nuke fleet back in the day when the Soviet threat was grave and money was plentiful? Then ask yourself what has changed to make it reverse course today and how it would pay for it.

[KamenRiderBlade]

The rest of the Navy's surface fleet needs to go nuclear

Save all the fuel space in the hulls.

Nuclear Cruisers, Nuclear Destroyers, etc.

Perhaps you can reflect on why the USN did not pursue an all-nuke fleet back in the day when the Soviet threat was grave and money was plentiful? Then ask yourself what has changed to make it reverse course today and how it would pay for it.

Nuclear technology back then was bulky, expensive to operate, required highly trained crew which were in short supply.

Adm. Hymen Rickover didn't push it hard enough to get it implemented across all the large surface ships that weren't a carrier?

It was too expensive to justify it on any surface vessel that isn't carrier size?

Newer technology like
Gen4Energy with it's small Hyperion reactors could potentially be fitted onto smaller vessels and be easier to change:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/hyperion.html
http://www.gen4energy.com/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27845359/ns/t ... 6V7IhinN0k

The Hyperion module looks small enough that even taking a ship in for a Nuclear Module change of that size seems far more reasonable if there was some path through the ship that allowed a module of that size to be transported from the nuclear power room towards some major exit in the ship.

With small reactors like the Hyperion module
You can cut the fuel bill, save the fuel for support aircraft, or use the storage tanks for other purposes.
Design your ships around the Hyperion modules in the future instead of retrofitting it.

[popcorn]

The rest of the Navy's surface fleet needs to go nuclear

Save all the fuel space in the hulls.

Nuclear Cruisers, Nuclear Destroyers, etc.

Perhaps you can reflect on why the USN did not pursue an all-nuke fleet back in the day when the Soviet threat was grave and money was plentiful? Then ask yourself what has changed to make it reverse course today and how it would pay for it.

Nuclear technology back then was bulky, expensive to operate, required highly trained crew which were in short supply.

Adm. Hymen Rickover didn't push it hard enough to get it implemented across all the large surface ships that weren't a carrier?

It was too expensive to justify it on any surface vessel that isn't carrier size?

Newer technology like
Gen4Energy with it's small Hyperion reactors could potentially be fitted onto smaller vessels and be easier to change:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/hyperion.html
http://www.gen4energy.com/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/27845359/ns/t ... 6V7IhinN0k

The Hyperion module looks small enough that even taking a ship in for a Nuclear Module change of that size seems far more reasonable if there was some path through the ship that allowed a module of that size to be transported from the nuclear power room towards some major exit in the ship.

With small reactors like the Hyperion module
You can cut the fuel bill, save the fuel for support aircraft, or use the storage tanks for other purposes.
Design your ships around the Hyperion modules in the future instead of retrofitting it.

Applicability in a naval vessel is a concern of any new tech. What works on land, buried underground and intended to be replaced every 8 years is obviously going to face very different operating environment aboard ship. Nukes buried deep inside a massive CVN enjoy a significantly higher protection level than nuke plant in much smaller DDG/CG hull..,a,major consideration for ships intended to sail in harm's way. Additionally, one cannot just assume the nuke approach will automatically result in cost savings.

[blindpilot]

Cost effectiveness of nuclear power is constantly being evaluated. These formula include mitigation costs of operational considerations. (from damage risk to numbers needed to cover missions at lower speed etc.)

For LHA 6/7+ America Class the current definitive opinion is at:
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41454

" In its January 2011 macroeconomic projections, CBO estimated that oil prices would average $86 per barrel in 2011 and over the next decade would grow at an average rate of about 1 percentage point per year above the rate of general inflation, reaching $95 per barrel (in 2011 dollars) by 2021. After 2021, CBO assumes, the price will continue to grow at a rate of 1 percentage point above inflation, reaching $114 per barrel (in 2011 dollars) by 2040. If oil prices followed that trajectory, total life-cycle costs for a nuclear fleet would be 19 percent higher than those for a conventional fleet, in CBO's estimation. Specifically, total life-cycle costs would be 19 percent higher for a fleet of nuclear destroyers, 4 percent higher for a fleet of nuclear LH(X) amphibious assault ships, and 33 percent higher for a fleet of nuclear LSD(X) amphibious dock landing ships."

However some things cannot be quantified,

"The use of nuclear power has potential advantages besides savings on the cost of fuel. For example, the Navy would be less vulnerable to disruptions in the supply of oil: The alternative nuclear fleet would use about 5 million barrels of oil less per year, reducing the Navy's current annual consumption of petroleum-based fuels for aircraft and ships by about 15 percent. The use of nuclear power also has some potential disadvantages, including the concerns about proliferating nuclear material that would arise if the Navy had more ships with highly enriched uranium deployed overseas. CBO, however, did not attempt to quantify those other advantages and disadvantages."

OIl needs to be around $140 a barrel in 2040 for long term average costs for an LHD/A. As above peak shouldn't be over $120 for 40 years, especially if you factor the OPEC desires to manage price at about $100.

BP

[KamenRiderBlade]

Interesting analysis.

[aaam]

There are actually a number of other advantages for nuclear surface ships, disregarding the price of oil. In fact, they would probably benefit even more than CVNs do. For one thing, they can carry more weapons (a CVN does a lot of things more than a CV, but it doesn't really carry more aircraft). For another, you can steam at full speed for days on end, which allows for shorter transits, a somewhat smaller fleet, more survivability, etc. Also, the attack on the USS Cole probably wouldn't have happened if she had been a nuke. When you have a nuke, the issue of which Fleet pays for the fuel when the ship is "chopped" to another in mid deployment doesn't arise. When you have essentially unfetterd power, including electricity, that opens up a world of options. There are lots more.

It's not that well remembered, but at one point, Congress passed a lw mandating that surface combatants above a certain size were to be nuclear powered. However, one of the SECDEFs in there opposed the plan and it was later rescinded.

There are a couple of big problems, though. One is, you can't mothball a nuke. You either operate it or you scrap it; nothing in between. A bigger one from the point of view of the green eyeshade types is the upfront cost. When you buy a nuke, part of the price is the cost of its nuclear fuel. This means that the delivery price includes fuel for 5, 15, 30 years or the lifetime of the ship, depending on the reactor technology. With a conventional plant, that price you've paid doesn't include any of the fuel. So, there's a big "bow wave" on the overall cost of a nuke and a lot of accountants can't get past that. That won't change as oil rises, the bean counters will still see that with the nuke, they've got to pay more up front.

[spazsinbad]

Just for a non-nuke change of pace - a similar PDF about Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs and how to get them onboard is available on Microsoft OneDrive is now available on the SpazSinbad Page on GoogleDrive:

https://drive.google.com/?authuser=0#fo ... 0VEM2ZvOXM

Folder: RAN LHD + RNZAF A-4K PDFs + Videos

LHDs & F-35Bs + Harriers Info ONLY 25 June 2014 Excerpts.pdf (283Mb)

[weasel1962]

Just wanted to highlight that a nuke-powered navy (incl surface ships) are issues that have been seriously thought about in past years (esp during 2006 + 2010 period).

CBO report
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41454
CRS report
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a518908.pdf

In all cases, its a simple case of too high a cost. The reports also indicate the various nuke reactor options etc so no point for me to repeat. Also wanted to highlight that it wasn't too long ago that there were nuke powered surface ships (Virginia & California class) and before some lazy idiot asks for pics or links, these are cruisers not the subs. Just wanted to point out too that some of those cruisers are about the same tonnage as DDG-51s at full displacement.

P.s. 1 Oil price isn't going to be a big issue for US in the next 2 decades with shale.

P.s. 2 Hyperion has been suggested for commercial tankers but its really an idea at this stage and more likely to be used for power generation than ships.

[KamenRiderBlade]

Just wanted to highlight that a nuke-powered navy (incl surface ships) are issues that have been seriously thought about in past years (esp during 2006 + 2010 period).

CBO report
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41454
CRS report
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a518908.pdf

In all cases, its a simple case of too high a cost. The reports also indicate the various nuke reactor options etc so no point for me to repeat. Also wanted to highlight that it wasn't too long ago that there were nuke powered surface ships (Virginia & California class) and before some lazy idiot asks for pics or links, these are cruisers not the subs. Just wanted to point out too that some of those cruisers are about the same tonnage as DDG-51s at full displacement.

P.s. 1 Oil price isn't going to be a big issue for US in the next 2 decades with shale.

P.s. 2 Hyperion has been suggested for commercial tankers but its really an idea at this stage and more likely to be used for power generation than ships.

As long as you stick to an All Electric Propulsion system, the power generation shouldn't matter to much.

You could switch to the Hyperion system later during a refit as long as you plan out your spacing appropriately

[weasel1962]

As long as you stick to an All Electric Propulsion system, the power generation shouldn't matter to much.

You could switch to the Hyperion system later during a refit as long as you plan out your spacing appropriately

Putting it in more simple to understand language. Hyperion will never be used in US navy ships.

[KamenRiderBlade]

As long as you stick to an All Electric Propulsion system, the power generation shouldn't matter to much.

You could switch to the Hyperion system later during a refit as long as you plan out your spacing appropriately

Putting it in more simple to understand language. Hyperion will never be used in US navy ships.

What about foreign ships?

What about commercial shipping?

[spazsinbad]

This July 2014 'Australian Aviaton' Magazine was just published. I am likely NOT to be able to get a copy any time soon - however others may be able to buy it somewhere - if not online? I wonder if they have one off purchases online. Anyway.... Perhaps some interesting MIL articles therein? All the way with Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs.

http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invb ... 823698.jpg

Those inclined with iPads can go here:

https://itunes.apple.com/wa/app/austral ... ?ls=1&mt=8

[thepointblank]

As long as you stick to an All Electric Propulsion system, the power generation shouldn't matter to much.

You could switch to the Hyperion system later during a refit as long as you plan out your spacing appropriately

Putting it in more simple to understand language. Hyperion will never be used in US navy ships.

What about foreign ships?

What about commercial shipping?

Nuclear powered commercial ships have been trialed in the past, with ships such as NS Savannah, Mutsu, the Otto Hahn, and the Sevmorput. They never really took off, because of the high costs involved, and the need for specialized crewing.

With the USN's nuclear cruiser fleet, they found the nuclear ships to also be very costly to upkeep. Coupled with their large crews, and the requirement for specialized crewing in an era where the USN was finding it difficult to keep nuclear qualified sailors, the USN disposed of their nuclear cruisers in favour of keeping the Tico's and the Burke's, which were more capable.

[spazsinbad]

Further to the 'John Bird Proposal' on page 60 of this thread, I agree with this idea: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=12631&p=272788&hilit=Bird#p272788

A SELF RELIANT DEFENCE FORCE
28 July 2008 John Bird Submitted to the Defence White Paper Team

"...RAAF opposition has long been a barrier to the acquisition of a shipborne (integral) air capability. Having long ago lost its control of rotary wing flying, it wishes to retain control of fixed wing aircraft, no matter where they are operated.

This proposal supports that aim and supports the one service control of the F35 and all its support facilities. It requires only that the aircraft is made available to the navy when required, to provide the support with which the air force has long been tasked. The essential difference this time is that would be a credible, an achievable support...."

Source: http://www.defence.gov.au/Whitepaper/20 ... d_John.pdf (276Kb)