New Nuclear Surface Combatants for the USN?

[Bort]

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2007/01/NTtaylor0110/
Apparently the new chairman of the US House Seapower subcommittee wants to begin building nuclear powered surface combatants again. Other than carriers the US hasn't had any nuke surface ships since the last CGNs were retired in the late 90's. I think this is an idea worth consideration, as nuclear powered vessels offer clear tactical and logistical advantages over conventional ships.

[Polak]

I voted No, because I dont want your Navy to better than my Navy.
Sound as an good idea for many reasons, but what would the impact be on the ocean/nature if one or more of those ships got sunk?

[baggygreen]

But why is that really an issue? every bloody sub they're built in the past 50 years has been a nuke, whats wrong with a few more to throw into the mix?

[Polak]

I am not saying that it is wrong, I am just asking for a damage assessment because I have no idea on what the impact on the ocean would be, but I can only guess that it wouldn't be to good. I remeber when a russian nuclear sub sunk some time ago, a lot of people got sick after that(not Kursk).

[baggygreen]

I didnt mean wrong either mate, not wrong as in incorrect anyways.

I wouldnt imagine that there would be much greater risk from a surface ship run off a reactor than a sub - the only main issue might be from terrorist attack like the USS cole - but were that to happen, besides obvious environmental issues which i've no doubt would be contained asap, the fallout would affect only the 'family' of those attacking.

[U-533]

Originally Posted by Polak

I am not saying that it is wrong, I am just asking for a damage assessment because I have no idea on what the impact on the ocean would be, but I can only guess that it wouldn't be to good. I remeber when a russian nuclear sub sunk some time ago, a lot of people got sick after that(not Kursk).

One name.

"GODZILLA"

:rotfl: :rotfl:

OHHhh NNnooo There goes Tokyo go go GODZILLA

[Abraham]

I really love nuclear powered ships, but I still voted no.

U.S. surface ships are either supposed to escort carriers, amphibious attack ships or do littoral patrol work nowadays.
Which means that they should be expendable if it comes to protecting the capital ships or if they have to go into harms way, for instance near enemy coastlines.
The only role I can see for nuclear surface ships is as AA/ASW escorts of carriers - and perhaps as ABM warfare ships. I think Aegis cruisers and destroyers can do the same job for a lower price...

Just because of their complexity, nuclear surface ships (other than carriers) will be so expensive that only small series will be build, which than will have to do too many tasks in order to justify their costs. The result will be a new class of capital ships, which will need its own escorts whenever it operates independently from carriers and which can hardly be send into harms way.

Does the US Navy still build ships it can afford to lose or should every vessel be ment to be completely invincible, and therefor extremely expensive and vulneralble?

[Konovalov]

I'm inclined to agree with Abraham on this one. No is my vote.

[fatty]

Two reasons why I vote no:

1) Several ports in the world are established "nuclear-free" zones and forbid the operation of such vessels.

I think it is more important for the Navy to maintain geographical flexibility - the ability to deploy their most powerful surface warships to any coast in the world.

Imagine if New Zealand was struck by a natural disaster and the USN deployed ships to provide aid (think Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004). Any nuclear-powered vessels would have to detatch and idle in the distance.

2) Almost spot on what baggygreen said; terrorists have already punched a nice big hole in a conventionally-powered DDG. It is naive to think that this can never happen again. It would be quite a coup for a nuclear-powered vessel to be stricken while making call in an angry foreign port.

[LoBlo]

If I recall correctly (its been a few months sinces I've read up) the Navy did a cost of operation analysis on Nuclear power and it really is more costly in terms of the manufacturing, maintainance, and personel cost to have nuclear power. Even with the saving on fuel, the overall cost over the lifetime of the ship is much higher for nukes. Only after fuel cost reach 4-5 times the dollar per barrel that they do atm do the cost equalize. And with the navy budget strapped for cash as it is its really not worth it until in a few decades oil prices are much higher than they are right now.

[Bort]

Imagine if New Zealand was struck by a natural disaster and the USN deployed ships to provide aid (think Indian Ocean Tsunami 2004). Any nuclear-powered vessels would have to detatch and idle in the distance.

Honestly, if a disaster of that level ever hits New Zealand-or any country for that matter- and they refuse to allow ships to deliver aid to victims because of their nuclear free zones- they need to rexamine their priorities as a society. I'm all for the rights of states like NZ to make nuclear free zones and such but an emergency is just that- an emergency- those sorts of rules were made to be broken for them.

[TteFAboB]

I voted yes because I want our Navy to be more powerfull than Poland's.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Polak

I am not saying that it is wrong, I am just asking for a damage assessment because I have no idea on what the impact on the ocean would be, but I can only guess that it wouldn't be to good. I remeber when a russian nuclear sub sunk some time ago, a lot of people got sick after that(not Kursk).

This, of course, is balanced by the hundreds of millions of cubic tons of diesel fumes that will be spewed into the environment on a daily basis from the operation of a conventional plant. How is that for the environment?

[fatty]

You are absolutely right, Bort, but I still think it's important for the USN to maintain its ability to go anywhere anytime without worrying about international red tape.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

This, of course, is balanced by the hundreds of millions of cubic tons of diesel fumes that will be spewed into the environment on a daily basis from the operation of a conventional plant. How is that for the environment?

I was under the impression that diesel combusts relatively cleanly, much more so than Chernobyl did

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by fatty

I was under the impression that diesel combusts relatively cleanly, much more so than Chernobyl did

Yeah? How's your winter going?