CG(X)es to be CGNs

[MKSheppard]

Link

December 24, 2007: The U.S. Navy has been ordered, by Congress, to use nuclear power in its new class of cruisers (the CG-21s). That should not be a problem, as the CG-21 is currently planned to be about 14,000 tons. But depending on the size of the nuclear power plant for the cruiser (one based on those used for nuclear subs, or the larger ones found in nuclear aircraft carriers), the CGN-21 might be a more conventional, 25,000 ton, design.

The new destroyer (DD-21) has a stealthy superstructure, and is as big as a battleship, at least a battleship of a century ago, The new 14,000 tons design, is 600 feet long and 79 feet wide. A crew of 150 sailors will operate a variety of weapons, including two 155mm guns, two 40mm automatic cannon for close in defense, 80 Vertical Launch Tubes (containing either anti-ship, cruise or anti-aircraft missiles), six torpedo tubes, a helicopter and three helicopter UAVs. The CGN-21 would drop one of the 155mm guns and the torpedo tubes, but carry more vertical cells for missiles (especially anti-ballistic missile missiles).

A century ago, a Mississippi class battleship displaced 14,400 tons, was 382 feet long and 77 feet wide. A crew of 800 operated a variety of weapons, including four 12 inch, eight 8 inch, eight 7 inch twelve 3 inch, twelve 47mm and four 37mm guns, plus four 7.62mm machine-guns. There were also four torpedo tubes. The Mississippi had a top speed of 31 kilometers an hour, versus 54 for DD-21. But the Mississippi had one thing DD-21 lacked, armor. Along the side there was a belt of 9 inch armor, and the main turrets had 12 inch thick armor. The Mississippi had radio, but the DD-21 has radio, GPS, sonar, radar and electronic warfare equipment.

Adjusted for inflation, the century old Mississippi class ships cost about half a billion dollars (adjusted for inflation). The new CGN-21 cruisers will cost about $3 billion each, thus possessing the price, and size, if not the name, of a battleship.

[MKSheppard]

Also

Link

House and Senate lawmakers are requiring the Navy to power its future classes of cruisers with nuclear reactors, unless the service decides that doing so isn't "in the national interest." This somewhat muddled provision is contained in the recently released fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill.

The provision states that all new ship classes of submarines, aircraft carriers and cruisers should be built with nuclear power plants. Since the Navy's plans for submarines and carriers already include nuclear propulsion, the provision would most directly affect the service's next-generation cruiser, designated CG(X). If nuclear powered, the service's designation for the ship would be CGN(X).

The Navy plans to award the contract for the lead ship of the CG(X) class of cruisers in 2011, at an estimated cost of $3.2 billion, and 18 more by 2023.Because of the long lead times needed to order nuclear components, procurement funds for the proposed cruiser's nuclear power plant would have to be included in the 2009 budget, currently being drafted by the Defense Department.

But if the Navy prefers to equip its future cruisers with conventional power, it does have an out. The measure states that with the budget request for the CG(X), the Defense secretary can submit a notification that "inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system is not in the national interest."

Navy officials told Congress that equipping the service's future cruisers with nuclear power, instead of conventional oil burning power plants, would increase the price of a ship by $600 million to $700 million.

The Navy also must report on the provision's potential impact on shipbuilders and whether additional yards must be certified to build nuclear-powered ships. Only two yards are certified to build nuclear-powered ships: Northrop Grumman Newport News, of Newport News, Va., and General Dynamics electric boat division of Groton, Conn. The two yards have built every nuclear-powered Navy vessel since 1969.

The Navy also has stated that due to the huge power demands of a cruiser's anti-ballistic missile radar and the rising cost of oil and gas, nuclear power might be more appropriate, according to a recent Congressional Research Service report.

The House bill contained the nuclear power provision, and is strongly favored by House Armed Services Committee, seapower subcommittee chairman Gene Taylor, D-Miss., and ranking member Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md. The Senate version of the bill did not express a view.

[Illuminatus Primus]

YES.

[SirNitram]

When the last drops come up from the pipes, the Navy will now have more than just the carriers.

[That NOS Guy]

When the last drops come up from the pipes, the Navy will now have more than just the carriers.

What about subs?

[SirNitram]

When the last drops come up from the pipes, the Navy will now have more than just the carriers.

What about subs?

True, I should have remembered the submarines. But then again, aren't most of those now tasked in a strategic weapons sense instead of most naval ops? That is to say, either to be ready to use WMDs, or neutralize those with them?

[MKSheppard]

So if this happens; the cost will be half a billion more per ship; but you have to take into account the values that Nuclear power adds:

* No more having to put in for refuelling at "unstable" ports like Yemen (this is what did in the Cole, she had to refuel in Yemen after a high speed run drained her tanks below acceptable levels).

* You can now operate your radar systems (in particular whatever replaces SPY-1) at higher power levels for much longer, without having to worry about the increased fuel consumption

*The USN UNREP fleet gets a reprieve. You'll still have to dock and fuel up the AVGAS bunkers (which could be increased to act as "ballast" and extend combat operations as a bonus) for the Helos; and to transfer food, and soda. But you won't have to do it so often; which means that the ship can stay on station in a CVBG more often than a conventional one...

[MKSheppard]

Of course, you do remember that Congress allocated money and directed the USAF to buy several dozen F-12B Mach 3+ interceptors; but McNamara killed it through sleight of hand...so this isn't a 100% done deal yet.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think Strange qualifies as a uniquely bad SECDEF and his policies as uniquely inappropriate, Shep. So I am keeping my fingers crossed.

[That NOS Guy]

True, I should have remembered the submarines. But then again, aren't most of those now tasked in a strategic weapons sense instead of most naval ops? That is to say, either to be ready to use WMDs, or neutralize those with them?

Aren't submarines by basic defination (and successful historical use) strategic weapons systems? They're certaintly not going to replace destroyers and I by no means suggest that.

[SirNitram]

True, I should have remembered the submarines. But then again, aren't most of those now tasked in a strategic weapons sense instead of most naval ops? That is to say, either to be ready to use WMDs, or neutralize those with them?

Aren't submarines by basic defination (and successful historical use) strategic weapons systems? They're certaintly not going to replace destroyers and I by no means suggest that.

I don't know about definition, but they've certainly stuck to use as guerilla tactics and strategic weapons systems, with such fun things as resource denial and ambush as their main methods of warmaking. Certainly it's rare we see them used for conventional naval ops, aside from the odd cruise missile bombardment.

[That NOS Guy]

I don't know about definition, but they've certainly stuck to use as guerilla tactics and strategic weapons systems, with such fun things as resource denial and ambush as their main methods of warmaking. Certainly it's rare we see them used for conventional naval ops, aside from the odd cruise missile bombardment.

In a future where resource wars will become increasingly common, shouldn't such area denial systems be seen as adventageous? I mean, it's certaintly adds to your claim of an offshore oilfield when you can park a few SSNs around the area to deter any unwanted interlopers.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't know about definition, but they've certainly stuck to use as guerilla tactics and strategic weapons systems, with such fun things as resource denial and ambush as their main methods of warmaking. Certainly it's rare we see them used for conventional naval ops, aside from the odd cruise missile bombardment.

In a future where resource wars will become increasingly common, shouldn't such area denial systems be seen as adventageous? I mean, it's certaintly adds to your claim of an offshore oilfield when you can park a few SSNs around the area to deter any unwanted interlopers.

Submarines cannot hold territory.

[Phantasee]

Well, in that case, neither can most nearly any other floating asset of the USN.

You might be able to make a case for a carrier, since they can just sit there for a long time without needing to refuel the ship. Resupply wouldn't be much trouble, bring the resupply to the carrier instead.

[SirNitram]

Phant, the idea that they need resupply, therefore they can't hold territory, says a soldier can't either(The guy's gotta go eat, rest out of theatre, etc).

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its not a resupply issue; you've never been able to replace the area-holding and power-projecting ability of a surface fleet with submarines. Not when the Kriegsmarine tried it, and not when anyone else did either.

[That NOS Guy]

Submarines cannot hold territory.

I think you're mistaking area denial missions for holding territory.

[atg]

Navy officials told Congress that equipping the service's future cruisers with nuclear power, instead of conventional oil burning power plants, would increase the price of a ship by $600 million to $700 million.

So the ships initial construction cost increases by $100 million. Does anyone know how much the nuclear fuel use would cost as compared to oil/gas fired ships? Per year? Over the ships lifetime?

[J]

The Navy plans to award the contract for the lead ship of the CG(X) class of cruisers in 2011, at an estimated cost of $3.2 billion, and 18 more by 2023.

Hmm...isn't that getting pretty close to the cost of an aircraft carrier?

[ray245]

Wait...the ship is a destroyer or is it a cruiser?

[Ritterin Sophia]

Wait...the ship is a destroyer or is it a cruiser?

Technically, anything in the modern US Navy that is called a cruiser or destroyer can qualify for both, in a CVBG they screen for the Carriers like a Destroyer, but they can also deploy independently to act as Cruisers.

[Sea Skimmer]

Hmm...isn't that getting pretty close to the cost of an aircraft carrier?

The equivalent lead ship of CVNX will cost something like 12 billion, but lead ships of any class always cost a lot of extra money since the price covers the design work and construction startup costs.

Submarines cannot hold territory.

I think you're mistaking area denial missions for holding territory.

Yeah submarines are sea denial weapons, surface ships are weapons of sea control, since they can do such useful things as stopping and searching merchant ships.

[AniThyng]

Wait...the ship is a destroyer or is it a cruiser?

The new destroyer (DD-21) has a stealthy superstructure, and is as big as a battleship, at least a battleship of a century ago, The new 14,000 tons design, is 600 feet long and 79 feet wide. A crew of 150 sailors will operate a variety of weapons, including two 155mm guns, two 40mm automatic cannon for close in defense, 80 Vertical Launch Tubes (containing either anti-ship, cruise or anti-aircraft missiles), six torpedo tubes, a helicopter and three helicopter UAVs. The CGN-21 would drop one of the 155mm guns and the torpedo tubes, but carry more vertical cells for missiles (especially anti-ballistic missile missiles).

Let us deconstruct this paragraph.

1). The DESTROYER is blah blah blah.

2) The CRUISER which is the actual topic of this entire article is bascially the same, but with 1 less gun and more missiles.


Unless of course this is a question on wether they deserve to be called cruisers or not, in which case I apologize for assuming this is the source of your confusion.

[Tsyroc]

The Navy plans to award the contract for the lead ship of the CG(X) class of cruisers in 2011, at an estimated cost of $3.2 billion, and 18 more by 2023.

Hmm...isn't that getting pretty close to the cost of an aircraft carrier?

It's pretty close to what a Nimitz cost 20-30 years ago if the Navy ordered two at a time. I think at the time they bought the Abraham Lincoln the cost was around $4 billion for a single ship and $3.5 billion a piece if two were ordered at the same time.

[ray245]

And damn...the CGX seems too small for me...sigh.

Is it too hard to ask for a US warship that is equal in size to the Kirov class battlecruisers?