USN Distributed Lethality

NeilChapman

Interested 3rd party
Joined
14 December 2015
Messages
1,279
Reaction score
469
The USN has been touting distributed lethality for the last couple of years. This thread is intended to discuss any thoughts on how the USN and their allies would advance that objective.

I'd like to start this off with one article discussing the possible resurrection of the "battleship".

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-biggest-what-if-could-super-battleships-make-19147?page=show

Having read the article, it occurred to me that submarines are being designed to last 30-40 years, Aircraft Carriers 90 years. Laser systems have not matured to be effectively fielded but are moving forward.

Is there a case to be made to build ships that can be "block upgraded" as future laser-defended battlecruisers? For instance, would it make sense for the US to build nuclear powered cruisers (survivability level 3) fielding large numbers of VLS tubes to act as naval "missile trucks" in anticipation of laser defensive systems in future? Perhaps these ships could be built using traditional defensive systems today, but with the electrical power to field laser defenses when mature. I would anticipate these cruisers sailing with CBG's and ARG's.

My understanding is that current naval nuclear power plants cost ~USD200Million. In a USD3Billion ship, that doesn't seem to add a significant "up front" cost.
 
NeilChapman said:
My understanding is that current naval nuclear power plants cost ~USD200Million. In a USD3Billion ship, that doesn't seem to add a significant "up front" cost.

Curious about this cost figure for the naval nuclear power plant.
CBO's estimate for equipping major surface combatants (in the 10,000 - 45,000 tons range) with nuclear reactors was ~ $1 billion/ship.

"The Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Power for Navy Surface Ships" (attached)
 

Attachments

  • ADA598622.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 24
NeilChapman said:
The USN has been touting distributed lethality for the last couple of years. This thread is intended to discuss any thoughts on how the USN and their allies would advance that objective.

I'd like to start this off with one article discussing the possible resurrection of the "battleship".

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-biggest-what-if-could-super-battleships-make-19147?page=show

Having read the article, it occurred to me that submarines are being designed to last 30-40 years, Aircraft Carriers 90 years. Laser systems have not matured to be effectively fielded but are moving forward.

Is there a case to be made to build ships that can be "block upgraded" as future laser-defended battlecruisers? For instance, would it make sense for the US to build nuclear powered cruisers (survivability level 3) fielding large numbers of VLS tubes to act as naval "missile trucks" in anticipation of laser defensive systems in future? Perhaps these ships could be built using traditional defensive systems today, but with the electrical power to field laser defenses when mature. I would anticipate these cruisers sailing with CBG's and ARG's.

My understanding is that current naval nuclear power plants cost ~USD200Million. In a USD3Billion ship, that doesn't seem to add a significant "up front" cost.

Nuclear powered Zumwalt would fit the bill.
 
marauder2048 said:
NeilChapman said:
My understanding is that current naval nuclear power plants cost ~USD200Million. In a USD3Billion ship, that doesn't seem to add a significant "up front" cost.

Curious about this cost figure for the naval nuclear power plant.
CBO's estimate for equipping major surface combatants (in the 10,000 - 45,000 tons range) with nuclear reactors was ~ $1 billion/ship.

"The Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Power for Navy Surface Ships" (attached)

I believe that was to "develop" a new reactor as the A1B would be too large for DDG-sized ship. That USD1Billion (2011 dollars) was across the whole class - not each ship. The individual ships reactors were built into the acquisition costs. LH(X) would accommodate A1B so that developed wouldn't be necessary.

Perhaps the reactor being developed for Columbia-class would be suitable for DDG-sized ship? Perhaps it wouldn't have the electrical capacity that the A1B has though.


N
 
sferrin said:
NeilChapman said:
The USN has been touting distributed lethality for the last couple of years. This thread is intended to discuss any thoughts on how the USN and their allies would advance that objective.

I'd like to start this off with one article discussing the possible resurrection of the "battleship".

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-navys-biggest-what-if-could-super-battleships-make-19147?page=show

Having read the article, it occurred to me that submarines are being designed to last 30-40 years, Aircraft Carriers 90 years. Laser systems have not matured to be effectively fielded but are moving forward.

Is there a case to be made to build ships that can be "block upgraded" as future laser-defended battlecruisers? For instance, would it make sense for the US to build nuclear powered cruisers (survivability level 3) fielding large numbers of VLS tubes to act as naval "missile trucks" in anticipation of laser defensive systems in future? Perhaps these ships could be built using traditional defensive systems today, but with the electrical power to field laser defenses when mature. I would anticipate these cruisers sailing with CBG's and ARG's.

My understanding is that current naval nuclear power plants cost ~USD200Million. In a USD3Billion ship, that doesn't seem to add a significant "up front" cost.

Nuclear powered Zumwalt would fit the bill.

Probably would work out nicely. Would a San Antonio-class be capable of 30+ knots if nuclear powered? Would something this size make more sense?

N
 
NeilChapman said:
I believe that was to "develop" a new reactor as the A1B would be too large for DDG-sized ship. That USD1Billion (2011 dollars) was across the whole class - not each ship. The individual ship reactors was built into the acquisition costs. LH(X) would accommodate A1B so that developed wouldn't be necessary.

Perhaps the reactor being developed for Columbia-class would be suitable for DDG-sized ship? Perhaps it wouldn't have the electrical capacity that the A1B has though.


N

Actually, the $1 billion premium was on a per hull basis which excluded the non-recurring costs of a new reactor (if needed).

I think the A1B can provide ~150 MWe which sounds adequate and that reactor is likely a better fit than the Columbia reactor
which is designed for an SSBN profile whereas a CVN's profile (EW system operation, sustained flank speed, etc) seems
more appropriate for a major surface combatant.
 
marauder2048 said:
NeilChapman said:
I believe that was to "develop" a new reactor as the A1B would be too large for DDG-sized ship. That USD1Billion (2011 dollars) was across the whole class - not each ship. The individual ship reactors was built into the acquisition costs. LH(X) would accommodate A1B so that developed wouldn't be necessary.

Perhaps the reactor being developed for Columbia-class would be suitable for DDG-sized ship? Perhaps it wouldn't have the electrical capacity that the A1B has though.


N

Actually, the $1 billion premium was on a per hull basis which excluded the non-recurring costs of a new reactor (if needed).

I think the A1B can provide ~150 MWe which sounds adequate and that reactor is likely a better fit than the Columbia reactor
which is designed for an SSBN profile whereas a CVN's profile (EW system operation, sustained flank speed, etc) seems
more appropriate for a major surface combatant.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I'll attached the text I was reading.

N
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-01-24 at 5.58.56 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-01-24 at 5.58.56 PM.png
    83.1 KB · Views: 288
marauder2048 said:
NeilChapman said:
My understanding is that current naval nuclear power plants cost ~USD200Million. In a USD3Billion ship, that doesn't seem to add a significant "up front" cost.

Curious about this cost figure for the naval nuclear power plant.
CBO's estimate for equipping major surface combatants (in the 10,000 - 45,000 tons range) with nuclear reactors was ~ $1 billion/ship.

"The Cost-Effectiveness of Nuclear Power for Navy Surface Ships" (attached)

I went back to see where I got my ~200Million number from - 2001. Sorry about that. I was off by quite a bit. The attachment (below from the CBO study) estimates that 5 nuclear powered LH(X) [America-class?] would be ~USD2Billion greater than conventionally powered. That's USD400Million for a single Ford-class reactor. The report is from 2011 so you probably have to add an additional USD100Million to that figure.

~500 million?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-01-24 at 10.44.49 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-01-24 at 10.44.49 PM.png
    38.4 KB · Views: 254
http://www.newsbud.com/2017/02/09/bfp-exclusive-report-a-distillation-of-dod-funding-priorities-for-january-2017/
"
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVAIR)
General Atomics received $532,614,821 for manufacture, assembly, inspection, test and checkout of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) delivered onboard CVN 80 aircraft carrier, including installation and checkout spares, repairs, technical data, and drawing changes.
"

=====


Ford-Class has 4 catapults @ >$500M. How many would a CVL have?

Would a CVL be able to generate the electrical power required for an EMALS systems or would a different CATOBAR solution be necessary?
 
NeilChapman said:
http://www.newsbud.com/2017/02/09/bfp-exclusive-report-a-distillation-of-dod-funding-priorities-for-january-2017/
"
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND (NAVAIR)
General Atomics received $532,614,821 for manufacture, assembly, inspection, test and checkout of Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) delivered onboard CVN 80 aircraft carrier, including installation and checkout spares, repairs, technical data, and drawing changes.
"

=====


Ford-Class has 4 catapults @ >$500M. How many would a CVL have?

Would a CVL be able to generate the electrical power required for an EMALS systems or would a different CATOBAR solution be necessary?

Two EMALS catapults that require 7.5 MW of prime power each.
So Zumwalt IPS+ or a scaled-up version of the hybrid
system on LHD-8.
 

The U.S. Navy’s future fleet design calls for a larger number of smaller ships, allowing for distributed maritime operations that spread out Navy firepower and logistics. This new reliance on smaller ships was expected to create more opportunities for smaller yards who haven’t been able to build Navy warships in the past, but could be well suited for small logistics ships and unmanned vessels. The Coast Guard, too, is recapitalizing several classes of ships, creating further opportunity.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom