In times past, we kept conventional ships in reserve after
they concluded their active service but we never kept nuclear ships, as best I
can determine. This makes sense, I
suppose. I assume that leaving nuclear
reactors unattended for years on end, as a reserve ship, is not safe or
feasible. This leads to an obvious
question: is this an additional argument
against nuclear ships and for conventional ones?
Admittedly, the argument is moot as we no longer maintain a
reserve fleet (see, “What Reserve Fleet?”) but,
still, it’s an interesting question.
As an isolated example, the conventionally powered carrier
USS Kitty Hawk stayed in various ‘reserve’ status from her retirement in 2009
to 2017 when she was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register. In contrast, the nuclear powered Enterprise
(CVN-65) began defueling and scrapping almost immediately upon retirement and
never spent time in any reserve status.
 |
| USS Kitty Hawk |
We’re beginning to reach the retirement age of the Nimitz
class. With the rising threat of China,
wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a reserve fleet of supercarriers? Unfortunately, even ignoring the Navy’s
policy of no reserve fleet, it would appear that nuclear ships can’t be held in
reserve status.
If we ever returned to maintaining a reserve fleet, the
inability to include nuclear powered ships – carriers, obviously – might suggest
that conventional power would pay an additional benefit upon termination of a
ship’s active status and that future carriers should be conventionally
powered. What do you think?
Leaving nuclear reactors unattended is not feasible. They need care and maintenance to remain safe. Also, the nuclear fuel is a very attractive target for terrorists. Simply blowing up a nuclear reactor would spread panic.
ReplyDeleteStealing the fuel would be very dangerous, assuming that the reactor had been used, but would give a terrorist group the chance to detonate a dirty bomb at a place and time of their choice.
Since naval reactors have to be small and high-powered, the fuel needs to be highly-enriched uranium. If the terrorist group had engineers willing to risk their lives by working with material that had been used as reactor fuel, they might be able to make a crude nuclear weapon out of it.
There are good reasons to scrap nuclear ships as soon as they are retired.
We need to keep several ships in a reserve status with no crew to use as bait ships.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.g2mil.com/bait.htm
G2mil
"Ping-pong balls are flammable, yet any air filled object that will not catch fire can be used." Then the USN would hand out a humungous budget for the development of non-combustible ping-pong balls.
DeleteSlap a catchy acronym and some Diversity on it, then you can ask Congress $2B funding for that.
DeleteMy proposal might support a reserve fleet, but more importantly builds flexibility. End RCOH and move to a build new strategy. Stable 3 ship block buys every 8 years delivering one ever 32 months. That is the fastest a Nimitz was built and launched in the dry dock. We are actually getting about 26 years on a reactor now so we could keep 10 active CVNs and not need the one laid up for refuel. Move fast enough and maybe save the last Nimitz or 2 such they form a reserve and could have an RCOH if needed. I don't really like that because the know how would be lost as well as the parts unless we buy the parts and don't do the work. Just keep building new and build them fast enough people remember how they did it on the prior carrier and remember what they wanted to do differently.
ReplyDelete"With the rising threat of China, wouldn’t it be wonderful to have a reserve fleet of supercarriers?"
ReplyDeleteObligatory comment pointing out that a hundred supercarriers are utterly useless unless you have enough air wings and skilled pilots to match.
The case for nuclear-powered submarines seems really strong given the US Navy's needs. I have a harder time following the case for nuclear powered carriers.
ReplyDeleteAll the escort ships and aircraft still need fuel. One nuclear carrier is not changing the logistics situation. We have had perfectly capable oil-fueled carriers. The case for nuclear power gets worse the faster you go, and our carriers are fast at 30+ knots. The nuclear fuel carriers use is horribly expensive compared to typical light water fuel so the operational savings are less than often assumed.
I don't agree that nuclear isn't less expensive than burning oil. But I concede I don't have all the numbers.
DeleteBut let's work with what we have. I punched 'kitty hawk gallons fuel per year' in to google and came up with (among other stuff) this:
https://www.stripes.com/news/fueling-the-military-1.84226
Indicates The Hawk burned 700,000 gallons per year. Let's stipulate the Kitty Hawk was burning fuel for 24 out of the 48 years on duty; just for back of napkin calculations.
24 years x 700,000 gallons per year = 16,800,000 gallons of light diesel. At $4 per gallon (today) for marine diesel that comes to $67.2 million lifetime ships fuel cost.
Yeah, yeah, yeah- That doesn't include UNREP costs or anything else. So double my $67 million and make it $134 million over 24 years. Hell. Triple it.
And... Additional research shows I'm not even close to a multi-billion RCOH. COMNAVOPS notes even he can't figure out how much of $6.5B for the Truman RCOH is dedicated to refueling the reactor(s):
https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2019/11/nuclear-carrier-refueling-cost.html#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20major%20costs,Navy%20is%20to%20be%20believed.
So. Mr. Vernon you appear to be correct that nukes are horribly expensive. And I was wrong. Quelle surprise!
The facts will always change my mind.
On the other hand. Looking even further I see Kitty Hawk burned 34 million gallons on a 6-month deployment:
https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/990824-kittyhawk.htm
So 34M gallons is $136M X 24 Deployments = $3.3B
Ummm... Diesel still looks cheaper. Especially given that Nimitz received its first (only, I think-) refueling 23 years after getting underway. COMNAVOPS may well be on to something in arguing for conventional carriers. Wow.
Errors and assumptions herein are all mine. I feel like I'm missing something. Big.
"you appear to be correct that nukes are horribly expensive."
DeleteThat's an incorrect - or, at best, highly provisional - statement that is entirely dependent on the bias of the person making the statement. I've thoroughly covered this (see, Nuclear Debate)
As an example, you're neglecting to take into account the fleet of oilers required to keep a conventional ship operating, the operating cost of those oilers, the construction cost of the oilers, the land based fuel storage costs (the fuel doesn't just magically appear in the oiler's tanks!), the refinery construction and operating costs, and one and on.
From what I've seen, when ALL the relevant costs of conventional and nuclear are compared, they're pretty much a wash. That's where you start to get into factors like tactical usefulness, damage control considerations, reserve candidacy, public relations, international relations, etc.
Also, bear in mind that much of a carrier's 'fuel' is transferred to her escorts rather than directly burned for power/propulsion. The carrier often acts as a refueler for the escorts.
"Yeah, yeah, yeah- That doesn't include UNREP costs or anything else. So double my $67 million and make it $134 million over 24 years. Hell. Triple it."
DeleteI was trying for a straight 'fuel only' comparison and was surprised at what those numbers show.
Figuring costs is tough. What's a flight hour? Fuel costs, obviously. Maintenance, which presumably is a blended rate. Any maintenance costs (parts and labor only) you do add in aren't ACTUAL; I'm sure it's calculated off some rate table. Purchase price? Depreciation? Crew costs? Do you add in depot-level maintenance as projected some years out but divided over current years? Development costs?
Figuring costs is tough. This is likely a contributing factor in Pentagon audits. Can of worms.
"Figuring costs is tough."
DeleteNo, not really. It's actually pretty straightforward. What's tough is deciding what to include or not in the total. Everyone I've ever discussed nuclear vs. conventional with has started from a preconceived position and then attempted to assemble cost figures to support that position. Honestly, I'm the only person I've ever met who started from an undecided, unbiased (almost uninterested!) position.
I see the nuclear construction costs, operating costs, refueling costs (if applicable), disposal costs, etc. and I also see the entire conventional fuel costs which include drilling, refining, distributing on an on-going basis, bulk storage construction and operating costs, refueling fleets, etc. and the conclusion is that when ALL costs are considered, they're pretty much a wash.
"I was trying for a straight 'fuel only' comparison"
Which would be an almost useless comparison. It would be like comparing two types of automobile based on the cost of their paint. It's about the least valid and comprehensive method of comparison possible.
For anyone with an open mind, it's obvious that nuclear and conventional costs are a wash and a choice between them comes down to non-cost factors as I've already described. THAT is the important takeaway and THAT is what should drive our ship designs.
You and I disagree on Cost Accounting. Which is accounting; but those are the rules we play by. Especially when it's convenient.
DeletePaint is a one-time cost on a auto. Gasoline is a recurring cost. So we disagree there but it's your example.
It's not obvious to me that nuclear and conventional costs are a wash BECAUSE Cost Accounting is Calvinball. That's why I tried a 'fuel-only' exposition. I'm fairly open-minded but I DO try to structure my arguments in a way that allows disagreement to encourage discourse. And, ultimately hopefully, a better result. Documenting limits and boundaries is a good thing.
Non-cost factors are... Well, that's the thing isn't it? Because how we (cost-) account for non-cost is what makes the difference. I was genuinely surprised that numbers (my work, but hey I tried) show oil-burning is a fractional cost (a SMALL fraction), of burning neutrons.
Regarding UNREP. And oilers. I'll stipulate that Nimitz doesn't require one UNREP per month that Kitty Hawk does for fuel. Scratch 24 years of fuel UNREP costs in favor of Nimitz. But. Let's also stipulate every other month for food replenishment on both carrier types non-negotiable. My 24 month advantage formerly in favor of Nimitz has now been cut in half.
So, yeah- Cost Accounting. What counts and how do you figure?
Your better point is that conventional ships are better options for Reserve Fleet(s). When I become SECNAV I'll direct NAVSEA to figure out IF gas turbines spinning generators for drive-pods on carriers is doable. And most all other ships too.
And finally finally- Note that historical evidence indicates a reactor re-fuel every 24 years or so. Please stick 2 multi-billion dollar RCOHs per carrier in your pipe and smoke it. IF you're thinking about a 48-year hull life-
COMNAVOPS it's good we're (all-) having these sort of discussions. This is what 'staffing' should be. Many thanks for all your efforts.
V/R,
Prospective SECNAV
Is having a reserve fleet even a viable option? Ships only really last for 30 years, and systems and skillsets go out of date. I recall the Iowas are no longer viable for reactivation because pretty much anybody who knows who to work them is either dead or too old to serve.
ReplyDeleteYou may not be grasping the concept of a reserve fleet. It isn't a fully ready, cutting edge, fully manned fleet sitting at five minutes sailing notice. It's a collection of out of date assets that could, AFTER UNDERGOING UPGRADES AND REFITS, become part of the active fleet, likely for peripheral duties. Thus, out of date systems and skillsets are just part of the upgrade process if the ship is called out of reserve.
DeleteBut if the reserve fleet has to be refitted and upgraded, what's the benefit to having it, as opposed to building a large fleet and ensuring it's adequetely staffed and maintained up to date? It seems to me that the costs in hulls and manpower are about the same, so we might as well just frontload those costs and pay them upfront.
Delete"what's the benefit to having it"
DeleteYou're asking what the benefit to being able to obtain already built ships for 10% of the cost of new construction after we've lost significant amounts of our active fleet??? You're kidding, right?
Let me explain where I'm coming from:
DeleteThe ships in this assumed notional reserve fleet are old ships, possibly several decades old, that are in relatively good material condition. However, their systems and weapons are outdated and they will need to be refit to be combat capable. Now, while weapons generally can be bolt on plug and play - especially as VLS propagates to all ships in the future, and canister ASCMs are a thing - we will still have a delay of time as we refit and upgrade these ships - this is not a quick or easy evolution.
The way I see it, rather than having a reserve fleet that has to be brought online for peripheral duties as you say (or being thrown into the meatgrinder because we have no ships left), I would rather emulate Admiral Zumwalt's high-low concept. Basically, we need more Perrys, lighter expendable ships to take on the peripheral duties so our high end ships can throwdown, ships that, in a pinch, can be used for missile fights. The FFG-7s did, afterall, carry a decent albeit limited missile mix of ASROC, Harpoon and SM-1.
The Italians, in my opinion, had a good idea of a modern Perry with their PPA-Light ships: ships with a minimal weapons load and modest sensors for patrol duties, that had the wiring and deck space to accomodate container missiles to bulk up for a serious fight. (Really, looking over it, PPA as a program is really what LCS should have been, but I digress.)
We're going to have to spend time and money to refit this reserve fleet and refresh and retrain the reservists and draftees to man them - we might as well spend that time and money upfront for a larger fleet. I can't see how having a larger fleet, allowing us to drive active ships from one side of the world to the other, is going to end up being slower than reactivating a mothballed fleet.
This had been touched on before, and yes, I think its unlikely theres any way to truly "mothball" a nuclear carrier. I think the answer to having a reserve carrier fleet is to slightly early retire them. Maybe around the 45-47 year mark. I understand thatd be tough considering the delays the Ford's are seeing becoming part of the Fleet, but...digression. Then, rotate crews and airwings that would normally be ashore through them for a few months, doing maintenance and just enough sailing and air ops to keep everything in usable shape. They could serve as a training carrier, and as more Nimitzes reach retirement, the ships could be rotated through the "active retired" ship slot every 6 mos, or however long would make the most sense for maintenance and manning (and importantly, extending their shelf life for the better part of a decade)The whole point being, they could be reasonably maintained, and would have enough life left in them for "one good war" if needed. Of course, we'd truly need more/expanded airwings, as well as a bigger pool of CVN crew to reap the benefits, but, having a couple "extra" CVNs to either surge or replace losses seems like a worthy pursuit...
ReplyDeleteWell, it's probably not quite correct to say that they CAN'T be in reserve. But it WOULD be a more expensive reserve. There would have to be at least a small crew to watch over and maintain the nuclear reactor, plus security of course. So it couldn't just be off in some normal reserve ships area. It would have to be in a base with security.
ReplyDeleteThats what Id meant, I just wasnt real clear. In my mind "mothballed" means a lot of things, but the big one here would be not having any crew aboard, and I dont think the Navy ever allows a nuclear plant to not be unattended, with some likely good reasons. So they'd have to be at a base like Everett, (West Coast prepositioning having an obvious reason) with at least the nuke crew, some skeleton housekeeping/maintenance, and security in attendance. In that vein there'd be a new, modified reserve status for them, and so probably wouldn't actually be decommissioned, until theyre actually retired and stricken from the rolls.
DeleteAnother problem with reserve status for nuclear ships is that, if you exhaust the reactor in regular service, it's expensive and takes a fair amount of time to refuel it, not to mention do a RCOH, when you want to activate it.
ReplyDeleteIt would still be hugely less than building a new carrier!
Delete"It would still be hugely less than building a new carrier!"
DeleteAbsolutely true. I was just pointing out that it would be a lot more than filling the tank on a conventional carrier and sailing off.
I think ideally, we'd push the carrier into reserve with 3-5 years of heavy use left in them. Which could equate to the better part of a decade of reserve use. I wouldnt put them in reserve if they needed refuelling before they were usable. Id put them in reserve in order to have them on hand for combat, and rotate them through being training carriers in order to conserve their remaining life, yet use them enough that they dont fall into neglect or disrepair.
DeleteConsidering we can't even do a maintenance on the USS Boxer, conventional gator navy, without hosing it up, I guess there are concerns, but I'd argue YES, you could reserve them. Keep in mind these ships have to be monitored for the shape they are in. The Enterprise was notorious for supposedly needing retiring- and fast- but that does not mean say the Nimitz is in poor shape. Plus let's define usage, since nobody seems to be taking aim at it. For starters, air wing and carrier bosses always complain about the training aspect for their flyers. Solution- The Nimitz is kept running as a training carrier. Reserve fleet manning, enough for one shift, keep some active duty, a small %, to be on ship at all times for security and basic running, but a training carrier need not have every weapon station manned, have multi shifts of cooks/IT/electrician, etc. In time of war, you have a reserve crew to immediately move her as necessary and man all stations, and since wars won't be 72 hours, you can grab/draft ex IRR qualified and such till she is fully manned and then have the choice if she stays as a training carrier or close to US based waters carrier, or if she goes out and tag teams with a more modernized carrier since you would not want to spend billions on every new update the active fleet gets (the other carrier is the eyes/ears as an example, the Nimitz solely back-up or goes dark with its systems). This argument could have been made for the Kennedy as well and Kitty Hawk, but since the Kennedy is next to be scrapped and the Hawk already there, well, probably too late (they'd also look good doing the med patrols rather than super carriers needed for the pacific. Iran is not a naval threat but needs some monitoring/hitting up as needed or you will need an America Class if you don't want a nuke carrier). The costs for manning with a small active duty and one shift of reservists is much lower than a full active duty component, the reactor is getting little wear/tear yet kept going, and in time of war, it's there for use. at some point yes, the fuel is exhausted and you have the call to make (or tow it and still use it as a training landing deck, use a heavy generator for a launch rather than reactor, similar to field operations done in Vietnam). But either way, we need to use these ships, not call them reserve ships and let them rot, like the Tarawa class for example. Let's have a reserve navy, with sailors qualified to man warships, not patrol docks only or be logistics only.
ReplyDeleteMilitary.com reports today the Navy spent $200 million to fix up the 30-year old Boxer, and they need much more.
DeleteThe 'fix up' was much more than just maintenance. For example, the ship was extensively modified and the deck 'rebuilt' to handle the F-35.
DeleteGiven the $2B+ purchase price tag, $200M is 10% and represents a bargain even if some additional work is required.
If the Navy would perform SCHEDULED maintenance, when required, these overhauls wouldn't be as expensive and time consuming as they are.
Ive read recent stories that there is talk of extending Nimitz' retirement date. It seems important to keep carrier numbers up, considering the 'situation' in WestPac- but... Without knowing how many miles are left on her reactor fuel, Id suggest an alternate path- maybe retiring her ASAP, in order to preserve that last year (?), two(?), of life left in her and saving it for an actual conflict might be a better choice. Once shes out of fuel, shes done. Even if we decided to refuel her again (which may or may not be possible), thats a lengthy East Coast process . At this point, looking at ships and their lifespans, and when to use them, seems like a strategic/tactical decision that goes beyond the budget and planned timelines...
ReplyDeleteIn my notional US Navy, we would have 12 Active Nimitz Class Carriers. They would retire to the Reserve Fleet of 3 Carriers at 40 years after a refueling and maintenance refit and act as Training Carriers for 10 years.
ReplyDeleteThey would then be partially mothballed at the dock and become the home of various A Schools with the power plant being maintained and trained on by Nuke School sailors for the ship's last 10 years. Then they would be scrapped.
12 Active
3 Reserve Fleet
3 Mothball Fleet
18 Total in case of war.
Sorry, but with which airwing, reserves are almost non exhistant. Airgroup numbers have seriously shrunk since the 90s, event the operational range of the airgroup has been reduced.
DeleteThe air wing needs a UAV that actually costs less than manned planes. MQ-25 is not that aircraft.
DeleteRE: Getting a few more years out of the Nimitz's:
ReplyDeleteThere is one fairly simple thing we could do with the Nimitz carriers to get some additional life out of the reactors: SLOW THEM DOWN.
Most of the energy from the reactor is used for propulsion, and the propulsion energy used to transit a particular distance (like across the Pacific Ocean) goes (crudely speaking) like the square of the transit speed. That means it takes FOUR times as much energy to cross the Pacific at 30 knots as it does at 15 knots. And so on.
So if we slowed them down a bit (except, of course when higher speeds are tactically essential), we could probably get another deployment or two out of them.
Incidentally, this same approach might be used to extend the service lives of LA class submarines, assuming that they are being retired because the reactors have run out of energy, as opposed to hull fatigue issues. It would also have the added benefit that, if a submarine runs into a seamount, there will be less damage because the submarine isn't going as fast.
"SLOW THEM DOWN."
DeleteOr ... and this is probably just crazy talk ... we could cease sending them on globe-spanning deployments that accomplish nothing.
Deployments do several useful things. They're an expensive way of doing them, but that may well indicate that current USN carriers are overly expensive to operate.
DeleteFirstly, they give the crews things to accomplish. Sitting in port rots a navy's practical skills quite quickly. The Soviets did that, and had plenty of accidents as a result, including loosing nuclear submarines,
Second, going to strange and new places is part of being a sailor. It helps make up for the mediocre pay, the cramped quarters, and all the other inconveniences of peacetime naval life.
Third, if you have to navigate a ship through narrow waters, at night, under EMCON - the kind of conditions that come with wartime - having been there before is really helpful. Doing that with smaller ships in foreign parts would save money, but conning officers also need practice with their own ship.
"Deployments do several useful things."
DeleteDeployments do NO useful things that can't be better accomplished with a home-port, maintenance intensive, training intensive model.
Deployments do several frightful things. They increase wear and tear on ships and aircraft, they defer maintenance, they irritate friends, neutrals, and enemies in the deployment areas, they promote instability, they increase operating costs, they stress sailors and families, and they promote idleness and bad naval/combat habits.
"Sitting in port"
Who, besides you, has suggested that we leave our ships 'sitting in port'? I'd like to know so that I can disabuse them of that idiotic notion.
As a long time reader, you know all this and I've posted on it.
I think the key is pure training and gaming at sea vs showing the flag. We need a lot more small navy out on patrol with maybe a destroyer on overwatch and let the rest hone skills. Exception being honing skills by toying with the enemy.
Delete"We need a lot more small navy out on patrol"
DeleteWhy? Why do we need ANY ships out on patrol? It's not like they do anything. How many videos have we watched of Iranian forces attacking/seizing merchant ships and we stand by and do nothing? Can't we stand by and do nothing without ships on patrol?
How many videos have we seen of Russian aircraft attempting to knock down our UAVs with flares dropped in their path while we stand by and do nothing? Can't we stand by and do nothing without ships on patrol?
We stood by and not only did nothing but actively surrendered our small boats when the Iranians told us to. Can't we surrender without ships on patrol ... just transport the ships the Iranians want to them without having to conduct expensive patrols?
You see where this is going, right? There's not point having small Navy or large Navy on patrol if we refuse to do anything with them. That being the case, bring them ALL home and save some money.
If we ever decide to grow a pair then we can re-evaluate.
I would argue for a all-nuclear Navy due to, if I understand the political climate(ha!) correctly, due to below
ReplyDeletehttps://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2021/01/climate-change-and-treason.html
It may be wiser to have a more capable nuclear-powered ship that would not be a polluting that a fossil fuel ship (which needs to be smaller to meet the "climate change requirements" and you need more power to power those radars and sensors so you end up with a less capable ship) thus you can put more capabilities into to without (hopefully) upsetting the Environmental groups voting for you. Yes, if we live in a dictatorship it would not be a problem but we live in a democracy (I hope) and a leader still would have to please their voters.
For storage well the Russians have nuclear ships in storage for some time like below:
"After the end of the Cold War the cruiser was rarely deployed and by 1999 it was permanently docked in Sevmash awaiting repairs. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_battlecruiser_Admiral_Nakhimov
Maybe as a face saving way to end the war in Ukraine we could ask for their experience to help us on our nuclear ships in storage (yes a wild hope but still...)
I should add that there are other nuclear fuels than what we use as shown below:
Delete"A handful of lawmakers want the Navy to research low-enriched uranium fuel to reduce nuclear weapons proliferation. But funding bans are on the horizon."
https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2023/07/inside-fight-over-alternative-sub-fuel/388791/
And from the link below: "Russia's modernised and repaired heavy nuclear-powered missile battlecruiser the Admiral Nakhimov will return to service by the end of 2024 following testing in September of this year, Russia's state TASS news agency reported on Tuesday."
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russias-nuclear-powered-admiral-nakhimov-warship-return-2024-tass-2023-06-13/
Which I should remind you that the Admiral Nakhimov " has been docked at Sevmash since 1999 without any activity." of course there is "On 30 October 2008, Russian Navy representatives of the Northern Fleet announced that the first modification on Admiral Nakhimov had been started and that the ship would re-join the Russian fleet by 2012." and now above as well as from the wikipedia link as per the earlier post.
So I see no reason why: " might suggest that conventional power would pay an additional benefit upon termination of a ship’s active status and that future carriers should be conventionally powered. " Unless, you really just want to stick to conventional fuel.
"Which I should remind you that the Admiral Nakhimov " has been docked at Sevmash since 1999 without any activity."
DeleteAnd I should remind you that Russia has a very poor record of nuclear reactor safety.
"So I see no reason why:"
DeleteThere's a problem if you can't see why conventional powered ships are a benefit as reserve assets. The significantly decreased requirements for safety, monitoring, reporting, government oversight, maintenance, constant staffing, and operating costs are clear and overwhelming benefits. That's indisputable ... unless you really just want to stick to nuclear fuel.
Now, one may legitimately debate the overall value of reserve nuclear ships based on tactical and operational characteristics - though those are offset by battle damage concerns and the need to provide conventional fuel for escorts, anyway - but the benefits to conventional reserve ships are clear and obvious.
Cheer up! Scroll down to China In Decline in this piece.
ReplyDeletehttps://reaction.life/gove-to-health/
Mind you, what if a declining power lashes out before it's too weak to do so? (That's what Kaiser Bill's Germany did in 1914 because of the successful industrialisation of the Russian Empire. That war didn't work out well for anyone except for the Bolsheviks and maybe the USA.)
So- I was white board doodling some ideas about reserve CVNs- and while admittedly its all speculation about how long you could "stretch" a carriers remaining fuel- I doodled out a basic plan, and decided to retire the Nimitz next year (2 yrs early), and then continuously retiring the next Nimitzes as soon as the next Ford was completed. The Nimitz would get just a caretaker crew until the Ike joined it in reserve. Then, starting with Nimitz, a full crew would do maintenance and basic pierside training for 8 mos. Then, 4 months of at-sea training and qualifications, culminating in completing an OPPE and flight deck quals, completely "certifying" the ship for combat/deployment. This would be the only part of the year when the nuclear plant was used, and ideally extend the ships "life" by about 6 years- (Nimitz to 2029/30) Then, the crew would move to the next reserve carrier and repeat, being replaced by a caretaker crew. After the third CVN joined the reserve, a second, more maint intensive crew would join the rotation, shortening the maint period from 8mo to about 5. This would result in having three reserve CVNs in 2028, with all of them having certs and quals less than a year old. It would bring us down to 9 "operational" carriers (10 -1 in RCOH), but we'd have two fully capable reserve CVNs in 2025 and three in 2028, along with a fully trained and qualified 1.5 crews on hand.
ReplyDeleteNow of course we need to address the airwings also- and wed need to reactivate the single reserve squadron and get them back into actual warplanes like Hornets or f-35s, and same thing wirh the squadron that is currently flying f-16s... Ideally reaching at least 11 completely manned and equipped wings.
I want to throw a monkey wrench into all these assumptions. I start with a question and leave with a question. How many nuclear engineers does the US have or can have for a Nuclear navy mission? How many nuclear qualified people does the navy need to operate they're nuclear equipment. In the event of war people die, including ship nuclear engineers.
ReplyDeleteAdd to this ships boiler techs and operators for old school conventional propulsion.
I now ask which asset (people) is easier to replace in the event of a war?
Sorry to appear glib but a lack of viable properly trained individuals could hamper the use of Nuclear fueled ships in wartime.
Signed Swamp rat
Boiler Tech is a dead rate- I believe the 'A' School has closed down since there are only a handful of boiler powered ships left- 10 to be exact- the Blue Ridges, the sub tenders, and the first 6 of the Wasp class.. BTs have merged with the MM rate.
DeleteThe Navy churn a lot of operators out of Nuclear Power School. When i was in decades ago, the nuclear program was absolutely huge. And they likely could increase that. In a pinch, many could be pulled from ships down for maintenance, etc and moved to vacancies in a war zone.
ReplyDeleteOr we could design a carrier whose nuclear core is removable like a battery.
ReplyDeleteNuclear powered carries differs from conventional warships in that their value is not in the armaments they carry but rather it's planes. Trading away volume needed for conventional fuel for aviation fuel and more stores make sense.
That and prior to EMALS, steam catapult needed huge volum of heated water that nuclear reactors as a by product happily provides. Even with EMALs, nuclear reactors provide more energy then conventional fuel.
Andrew D. Todd, I deleted your comment because it appears to be an add for you or your services. The link you provided is dead.
ReplyDeleteIf you are legitimate, feel free to repost with relevant content and without the personal information and addresses.
"I go back in blogging"
DeleteWhile your life story may be interesting on a personal level, this is a naval blog. Feel free to post if you have a naval matter to discuss.
While I have no problem with links to naval articles, I do not host advertising for personal websites or emails so please refrain from including that information. Your profile can include that information if anyone is interested.
So ... was there a naval matter you wanted to discuss?