US Navy, 25,000-ton cruiser under consideration
 

wow...

Good for the Navy...I was starting to wonder what the heck we were going to do about replacing the Ticonderogas.

I wonder whether the 25,000ton ship is perhaps too big. The only reason you would a platform that big would be 1) Battleship Guns, 2) A through deck cruiser design that allows you to operate aircraft: EG: British Invincible Class (21,000tons)

I don't see any indication that she is being designed for either weapon. And surely one or two giant ships for ballistic missile defence would leave the US in an exceptionally precarious position should one get torpedoed.

The Virginia CGN displaced ~11,000 tons. Add two VLS grids for BMD and modern AAW, assume she will carry two helos, then figure fuel and other misc. logistical factors, extra crew... it adds up quite quickly!

I say scrap it and build the submarines that would or could sink it someday, but I know how the high brass thinks and it's not pro-submarine's.

Did you see the price tag on this thing?

I think it was one billion dollars for the nuclear power plant alone, plus another seven (7) billion dollars to finish it and they want more than one. :down:

What's it with all that nukular fetish??
Seriously until the USN fields the big bad interceptor missile (TM) at the size of a Saturn V in multiple cell VLS launchers, I don't see a reason for a missile dreadnought :)

To me this seems to be a rehash of the old "arsenal ship" thing only now with ballistic missile defense as the excuse, not cruise missile platform as before.

I too wonder why Congress is "pressuring" the Navy to make the ship nuclear.

That's easy...not enough production without it. The know-how and expertise to build nuclear vessels is quickly fading, as the number of nuclear powered ships in the US Navy has dropped dramatically since the end of the Cold War. If they make a new class of ship nuclear-powered, it may help to retain that knowledge/expertise for future use.

If your building a ship today to look good ... go bunker fuel oil.

If your building a ship to go to war ... go nuclear power. Then
you don't have to refuel in the middle of one. :yep:

I don't think UNREP is any big deal... but you raise another good point. If we expect the new cruisers to operate ~30 years like the Ticos, and if they're ordered in 2011-2023, then that means they have to be good for us until around 2040-2050. Who can say for certain what the oil situation will be in the U.S. and in the world by then?

I'm sure it will be the focus of several more wars than it is already :)

It soulds a little to big in size, and doesn't seem to have much in the way of flexablity. Nuclear power is a 50-50 bet either way the oil situation goes.

I could cetanly understand that if the Navy said to Congress, "we need a nuclear cruiser to keep the skill alive", but this went the other way. What does Congress know about the art of shipbuilding, that the Navy doesn't?

The art of shipbuilding in general is a rapidly declining skill in the United States.:nope:

Energy might be a reason, even though I suppose the navy would be the last thing to run out of gas in the US.
More like "station time" being the watchword in current naval building.
A nukular (love the word) supercruiser with a boomer like "gold/blue" crew concept and automated logistics could basically stay on station forever.
Like a surface boomer, only with the task of not causing Armageddon, but preventing it (or better, preventing 50% of it :D)