USN Distributed Lethality

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.

Click to expand...

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)

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Nuclear powered Zumwalt would fit the bill.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

N

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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?

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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".

The U.S. Navy's Biggest 'What-If': Could Super Battleships Make the Ultimate Comeback?

President Trump might want to think this one over.

nationalinterest.org

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.

Click to expand...

No, carriers are only being built to last 50-60 years, but you're right on subs. 688s were designed for ~25 years, though some were kept in good enough shape to be worth refueling at ~25 years to last another ~8-10 before finally retiring. Virginia-class are designed for 30something years service. Ohios were designed for 40 years with a refueling at 20, that's why we ended up with the Ohio SSGNs.

There's honestly industrial policy reasons to reduce the planned lifespan of ships, so you constantly have the shipyards busy. It also allows you to have more up to date ships and more experienced naval architects because you're constantly building and designing new classes.

Got a class of AAW destroyers to build? Okay, build 10 or so of them. As soon as ship 2 is in the water, start designing the second flight or replacement class (or both and compete the two designs).

Japan has been really good about this, though mostly with smaller production runs of ships. They have mostly been designing classes of 2 for their big ships, but subs and frigates and smaller have had 10+ ship classes.

Alternatively, keeping the longer hull life of 30-40 years allows you to slowly grow the fleet while producing say, 10x Flight 1, 10x Flight 2, maybe a 3rd flight, then the new class 20 years after Flight 1 hits the water. The older ships then get assigned as your "low capability" ships under the classic high-low procurement strategy.

NeilChapman said:

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.

Click to expand...

You've basically described a Zumwalt or CG21. Integrated Electrical Power generation to power big radars, lasers, maybe railguns, etc.

The challenge is to leave enough growth margin, enough Space, Weight, Power, and Cooling capacity to allow for the growth. Lasers in particular are basically a blast furnace that puts out coherent light as a byproduct. A 10 megawatt laser beam needs a good 17-20 megawatts of power input, and 7-10 of those megawatts are turned directly into heat. High Powered Microwaves are better about the energy conversion, but are easier to armor against than lasers.

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.

Click to expand...

The problem isn't the up-front costs of a nuclear powered ship, it's the long term costs.

You need the shore side training complexes. You need to find the people who think the right way to be nukes, and you need to convince them to enlist. And part of that is throwing a LOT of money at them. When I was in, the usual first reenlistment bonus for a nuke maxed out at about $50k, at the 4-year mark. That's the bonus, on top of being promoted early so their base pay was higher. 4 years to make E5, because that was a reenlistment option. The second re-enlistment was more like $75k after ~8 years in. Third reenlistment at 12 years was down to maybe $30k, on the assumption that you're in for the full 20 at that point. But IIRC that might still be usable at 16 years as well, or was a "Zone D" for ~$10-15k. And by the time you're at your 16-year point, you're probably a chief unless you pissed off too many people.

There aren't any "Firemen" E1-E3 paygrade nukes, they're all at least Petty Officers (barring stupidity that gets them busted a paygrade).

And you need a LOT of bodies. On the order of a dozen per watch, times 4 watches a day, for roughly 50 bodies per reactor. While gas turbines basically need 1 engineer per engine, if that. IIRC the usual GT large ship has 4 engines, so they'd need ~16-20 engineers per ship.