military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (07/10/89)
From: vixie!decwrl!decvax!midnight.MV.COM!rml (Roger M. Levasseur)
I've read this news story that said that a debate is brewing
over the USS Enterprise. What to do - refuel and overhaul (at
a cost of $2 billion), or decommission her and build new
carrier that would cost just $3.3 billion instead. In 1991 the
ship will be 30 years old; an overhaul would add 20 years to
her service life. Aside from the politics, it just doesn't
seem like a good move to spend $1.3 billion more for a ship
that will be much newer, but having much the same capabilities.
Looking at the 12th edition of The Ships and Aircraft of the US
Fleet, each class of ship measures up to be nearly the size,
same manning requirements, and capabilities. Any comments?
-roger
-=-=-=-=-=-
Roger M. Levasseur
...{decvax,harvard}!zinn!midnight!rmljkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET (Jeff K Medcalf) (07/11/89)
From: Jeff K Medcalf <sun!Central!uokmax!jkmedcal@uunet.UU.NET> >From: vixie!decwrl!decvax!midnight.MV.COM!rml (Roger M. Levasseur) > >that will be much newer, but having much the same capabilities. >Looking at the 12th edition of The Ships and Aircraft of the US >Fleet, each class of ship measures up to be nearly the size, >same manning requirements, and capabilities. Any comments? > > -roger Actually, size is misleading. The Enterprise has eight reactors, compared to the current two on Nimitz and Improved Nimitz classes. This translates into more stowage for avgas and munitions, and also more fuel for the escorts, which are not always nuclear. In addition, the newer flat tops have better damage control, more efficiently laid out command suites, and better radar coverage (since Enterprise has the flat island structure for the old phased array radar she used to carry). Furthermore, a ship 30 years old is not as strong as a new ship, which could be vital when the ship is hit. I think also that there has been a scheme developed recently which would deflect the shaped charges of many antiship missiles, but which cannot be retrofitted. -- I dream I'm safe jkmedcal@uokmax.UUCP In my hotel womb Jeff Medcalf Soft and so nice It's a wonderful womb <-The Church, "Hotel Womb"
budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) (07/11/89)
From: budden@manta.nosc.mil (Rex A. Buddenberg) Everytime the combat system in a ship reaches a stage of obsolescence, this debate happens. The only real difference is in the case of E, it's refueling, not the combat system. For background, the electronics in a ship tends to turn over about every ten years. For those ships past their mid-lives, this fact is catching up, and we didn't understand it well enough 20 years ago so the hulls weren't built with electronics system growth in mind. Propulsion systems tend to age much more slowly -- we've Coast Guard cutters that retired at ages like 45-50 years with the original plants in them. The history of FRAMS, SLEPs, Midlife Maintenance Availabilities, etc, is quite interesting. In many ways, the qualities of the original design are proven at this point -- a successful ship can be rebuilt successfully. And some just don't rebuild well. Carriers, because of their large enclosed volume, tend to be pretty amenable to SLEPs -- indeed you can run both the old and the new combat system side-by-side if need be. Submarines, on the other hand, are very difficult to update. Carriers are retired at ages like 45 years; submarines at 20 years. In most cases, the hulls are not worn out (icebreakers are an exception). It's just too damned expensive to update the ship -- better to start over. But watch, this is a luxury that we can't afford; I predict we'll see surface ships lifespans lengthen somewhat over the next couple decades. To get back to the Enterprise, the pricetag is only part of the problem. Carriers inevitably come with lots of politics attached. Rex Buddenberg
welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) (07/12/89)
From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
In article <8127@cbnews.ATT.COM>, Jeff K Medcalf writes:
=>From: vixie!decwrl!decvax!midnight.MV.COM!rml (Roger M. Levasseur)
=>that will be much newer, but having much the same capabilities.
=>Looking at the 12th edition of The Ships and Aircraft of the US
=>Fleet, each class of ship measures up to be nearly the size,
=>same manning requirements, and capabilities. Any comments?
=Actually, size is misleading. The Enterprise has eight reactors, compared to
=the current two on Nimitz and Improved Nimitz classes. This translates into
=more stowage for avgas and munitions, and also more fuel for the escorts, which
=are not always nuclear.
yep. when Enterprise was built, the only proven powerplants were from
contemporary submarines, so 8 submarine reactors were used to minimize
the risks in building such a novel ship.
however, to place things in perspective, even with 8 small reactors instead
of 2 large ones, Enterprise has more available stowage than contemporary
conventionally-powered carriers, such as John F. Kennedy.
=In addition, the newer flat tops have better damage control, more efficiently
=laid out command suites, and better radar coverage (since Enterprise has the
=flat island structure for the old phased array radar she used to carry).
Enterprise got an all new, Nimitz-like island during her last major refit.
richard
--
richard welty welty@lewis.crd.ge.com
518-387-6346, GE R&D, K1-5C39, Niskayuna, New York
Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?
Driver: No. The speedometer only goes up to 85