siyt@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (p.jayne) (11/30/89)
From: siyt@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (p.jayne) The subject of nuclear powered surface ships has come up in other contexts, but not as a direct topic. The idea of nuclear powered submarines is too clear to question, but I'm curious about surface ships. The navy has had lots of experience by now. Do nuclear ships pay for themselves in fuel savings (vs. reactor maint.) alone? What are the other advantages -- more time on station? What about disadvantages? At what point does ship size become a factor? And so on. Paul Jayne
bash@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (thomas.w.basham) (12/01/89)
From: bash@cbnewsd.ATT.COM (thomas.w.basham) >From: siyt@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (p.jayne) >The subject of nuclear powered surface ships has come up in other >contexts, but not as a direct topic. The idea of nuclear powered >submarines is too clear to question, but I'm curious about surface >ships. The navy has had lots of experience by now. Do nuclear >ships pay for themselves in fuel savings (vs. reactor maint.) alone? >What are the other advantages -- more time on station? What about >disadvantages? At what point does ship size become a factor? > Paul Jayne >From what I've read, CVNs are the big winner. The space gained by not having to carry fuel for the ship makes more room for fuel for the aircraft, weapons, etc. I suppose any nuclear powered ship would have more available space than it's conventional counterpart. Tom -- Tom Basham AT&T Bell Laboratories (312) 979-6336 att!ihlpb!bash bash@ihlpb.ATT.COM If you can't beat 'em, infiltrate and destroy them from within.
kpk@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (kenneth.p.kretsch..jr) (12/01/89)
From: kpk@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (kenneth.p.kretsch..jr)
>From what I remeber from a talk at Bell Labs some years ago...
Over it's lifetime, the cost of a nuclear aircraft carrier is a few
percentage points greater that of a conventional one. The advantage,
I think, is less down-time for refueling. There where other advangates
but I don't remember them. I suppose a nuke power plant a fuel load
is considerably smaller and lighter, in the end, than a conventinal one.
--
Ken Kretsch
...!att!bubba!kpk
kpk@bubba.ATT.COMgwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) (12/01/89)
From: gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert) In article <11822@cbnews.ATT.COM> siyt@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (p.jayne) writes: > >The subject of nuclear powered surface ships has come up in other >contexts, but not as a direct topic. The idea of nuclear powered >submarines is too clear to question, but I'm curious about surface >ships. The navy has had lots of experience by now. Do nuclear >ships pay for themselves in fuel savings (vs. reactor maint.) alone? >What are the other advantages -- more time on station? What about >disadvantages? At what point does ship size become a factor? >And so on. Whether they pay for themselves is a Bookeeping question. No, on fuel, because it is expensive to refine uranium, but when you consider the infrastructure for petroleum storage and transportation it comes closer to parity. THe reactor is much more expensive to start with, though. Operationally, a Nuclear ship can spend lots more time on station... more in fact than you want to do [crew sanity] in peacetime. Big atvantage. THere are no big disatvantages, the plant is on same rough level of power output per pound and volume as other types. [Somewhat heavier, if i remember correctly]. Reactor size and scaling problems mean that it's best to use bigger plants. The current sub reactors are pretty much the smallest economical installation. You can get smaller, but it isn't worth it usually. All the above from Freshman Intro to Naval Architecture class here, and memory may be a bit muddled. \ ***************************************************************************** George William Herbert UCB Naval Architecture [On schedule? at UCB? Yes!] gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu gwh@soda.berk... maniac@garnet.berk... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "And what if I Don't?" "Then, You will die, the Girl dies, everybody dies..." -Heavy Metal |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rbeville%tekig5.pen.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Bob Beville) (12/04/89)
From: Bob Beville <rbeville%tekig5.pen.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET> Along these nuclear powered ship lines.. can (able to...) any mil.netters out there comment about a nuclear sub that is nomenclated: NR-1 ????? If my "parrot is shining" please notify by e-mail. that's -OWARI- from GLOWWORM-7-9-4 best regards, rbeville@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM Bob Beville, Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR 97077
fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (12/05/89)
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) In article <11916@cbnews.ATT.COM>, rbeville%tekig5.pen.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Bob Beville) writes: > > > From: Bob Beville <rbeville%tekig5.pen.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET> > > > Along these nuclear powered ship lines.. > can (able to...) any mil.netters out there > comment about a nuclear sub that is nomenclated: NR-1 ????? > If my "parrot is shining" please notify by e-mail. Since I see no parrot shining, is the net OK? The NR-1 is a nuclear-powered research sub. A major problem with most research submarines is limited time-on-station. The NR-1 can hang around for days...scheduling use might be a problem, though. Unless the Navy has assigned you to it for some reason. ------------ "...Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who receives it, in the belief that such writing will be clear and certain, must be exceedingly simple-minded..." Plato, _Phaedrus_ 275d
trb@cbnews.ATT.COM (Tom Balent) (12/06/89)
From: trb@cbnews.ATT.COM (Tom Balent) In article <11916@cbnews.ATT.COM> rbeville%tekig5.pen.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET (Bob Beville) writes: > > Along these nuclear powered ship lines.. > can (able to...) any mil.netters out there > comment about a nuclear sub that is nomenclated: NR-1 ????? > If my "parrot is shining" please notify by e-mail. > The NR-1 is a nuclear powered Naval research submarine. It is SMALL, with a crew of about 4 or 5. In 1973 while stationed on board the USS Thomas Jefferson (SSBN 618), we were berthed at the pier at the sub base at New London, the NR-1 was forward of us at the same pier. The thing is tiny. It is also (was?) very secret - even though I was a nuclear trained enlisted I (and my shipmates) were not allowed on board to look around. The thing has wheels on it (so I am told) so that it can roll along the bottom. It also has closed circuit tv cameras outside so that the occupants can see what is going on. If I remember correctly the recator plant is not a pressurized water type, it has some sort of exotic setup. There was, a few years ago, an article in National Geographics about the sub. The author got permission to ride her when she was on some sort of survey mission near Ireland. (sorry I cannot be more precise about the date of the article). tom balent at&t-ns columbus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "There are two types of ships in the world, ...subs and targets"
ron@hpfcso.hp.com (Ron Miller) (12/06/89)
From: hplabs!ron@hpfcso.hp.com (Ron Miller)
RE: Nuclear surface ships
Generally the tactical and strategic advantage of having nearly unlimited
fuel is extremely important. Having to call "time-out" for underway
refueling is both difficult and dangerous. A nuke doesn't have to
be refueled at sea, nor is its operation dependent upon this
financial quarter's oil prices. (yes, one eventually has to replenish
food stores.... but you can do that with a helicopter at 30 knots)
The nuke is initially expensive, much more costly to operate in terms
of expensive repair parts and far more extensive personnel training.
Many countries will not permit nuclear powered warships to enter their
water, thus restricting port flexibility.
One thing to note is that in peacetime when Congress doesn't want to
buy fuel oil, the nukes pick up a larger than their fair share of
at-sea days. This leads to little things like the bumpersticker
I saw in Norfolk:
USS NIMITZ: The Screws Never Stop
Have a nice, Navy day! :-)
Ron Miller ex-Lt. USN
of USS CINCINNATTI (SSN-693)terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) (12/07/89)
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) In article <12017@cbnews.ATT.COM> hplabs!ron@hpfcso.hp.com (Ron Miller) writes: > > >From: hplabs!ron@hpfcso.hp.com (Ron Miller) > >Generally the tactical and strategic advantage of having nearly unlimited >fuel is extremely important. Having to call "time-out" for underway >refueling is both difficult and dangerous. A nuke doesn't have to > be refueled at sea, nor is its operation dependent upon this >financial quarter's oil prices. (yes, one eventually has to replenish >food stores.... but you can do that with a helicopter at 30 knots) > Unfortunately it takes more than food to keep a battle group operational. Carriers still require enormous quantities of aviation fuel, and munitions (assuming there's any shooting). Although the navy has spent a lot of time and money developing effecient ways of getting materiel across the gaps between ships, they have not made much progress in striking the stores below. The replenishment process is still slow. As an aside this is one of the major questions about the vertical launchers. Reloading them is essentially an inport function. The carrier may be a nuke, but many of the escorts aren't. Try as it might, the navy has not been able to provide enough nukes to make nuclear powered battle groups. Considering the small boys need fuel more frequently, the battle group still requires frequent stops at the pump. It's a shame that the navy hasn't been able to build enought nukes. The mobility of an all nuke battle group is impressive. Try it sometime in the Fleet series games using the logistics rules. Terry Rooker terryr@cse.ogi.edu
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (12/11/89)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker) >Unfortunately it takes more than food to keep a battle group >operational. Carriers still require enormous quantities of >aviation fuel, and munitions (assuming there's any shooting). My recollection is that off Vietnam, typical carrier operations were something like 7 days "on the line" followed by 4 days off to replenish fuel and munitions. (I can *probably* dig up exact numbers if anyone is interested.) A supercarrier's magazines have a couple of kilotons of ordnance in them (that is *not* counting nuclear weapons), but intensive air operations eat bombs and missiles at a frantic rate. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dale@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Dale Borgeson) (12/13/89)
From: dale@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Dale Borgeson) in article <12167@cbnews.ATT.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) says: > > My recollection is that off Vietnam, typical carrier operations were > something like 7 days "on the line" followed by 4 days off to replenish > fuel and munitions. I was in a fighter squadron (VF-114) on the Kitty Hawk from 1970 to 1973. This included two combat cruises to Vietnam. On later crusises (72), the AOE class supply ships (I think AOE is the correct ship type) like the Kansas City and Sacramento were available for unrep (underway replenishment). The AOE carries everything; food, JP-5, avgas, ordinance, spare parts, and ship fuel (NSFO & ND):one stop shopping. With the AOE the the rate of replenishment was mostly determined by ordinance. in 72 we were using a lot of bombs ( > 200 tons/day ). We would fly for 12 hours and break for 12 hours. we would resupply every three to five days during the non-flying time. About every 14 days we would have a stand-down day where we were supposed to take it easy but the aircraft maintanence people (me) worked even harder because all of the planes were available. This would go on for 30 to 60 days ( a line period ) after which we would go to SUBIC BAY for 4-5 days of liberty and then go back to the line. A cruise lasted 9-12 months. The AOEs were huge. THe main deck was at about the same level as the hanger deck, which made unrep a little easier. They were almost as long as the carrier. There were at least two fuel lines and four cargo lines between ships. The AOE also had a helicopter pad aft and a hanger for two CH-46s (I'm not sure about the type, it had two rotors fore & aft). The helicopters would take the light stuff to the flight deck. Mostly we took on bombs. After 2+ hours there would be bombs and bomb finn pallets everywhere; in the magazines (full), the mess decks, the hanger deck, and the starboard side of the island on the roof. After 3-5 days of flying it would be all gone & we'd do it again. Dale Borgeson Rosemount Inc. Minneapolis