by SumGui » Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:19 pm
Fewer platforms will mean it hurts more if one is out, however the time that a nuke would need nuke specific work (refuel) is the same time the conventional vessel needs an overhaul/rebuild (20-25+ year mark). New vessels have a very long core life projection - the S9G is projected to have a core life of 33 years, probably the life of most vessels.
As far as numbers go, to use your 10 vessel number, I would build a fleet of :
Two nuclear (for independent operations, 'first responder' roles with the fast transit, and/or fast escort of a CVN)- this would be CSGN
Four fully capable 'Turbine' ships for high density/battle group operations - this would be a Burke equivalent
Four Patrol/low intensity vessels (at approx .75 the cost of the 'full' turbine ship) - say a Diesel/CODAG - this would be a modern Frigate
So I would not see a loss in numbers, but a blend of capabilities. Not necessarily at this ratio - I was just trying to illustrate using the 10 ships mentioned above, and an Idea that a CSGN might cost 1.5 Turbine vessels, and a Frigate .75 of that turbine vessel.
I love the LM-2500 - it is very reliable and easy to maintain. It is also thirsty, and the USN is DECREASING the endurance of LM-2500 vessels in general - Burks have only a 4500nm endurance, compared to Spru's 6000nm endurance, increasing the Burke's reliance on a supply chain. this is not to say Burke's are bad - just to illustrate the navy has an endurance problem, just like when they let go of the F-14/A-6 for the short legged Hornet. Reduced range increases vulnerability for all assets involved (have to operate closer to the threat, have a smaller area of predicted operation, 'rear' units, like supply ships, have to be closer to the threat...ect)
The fossil fuel vessel does OK in Battle group operations, where many vessels are using the same supply vessel, but that limits maneuverability and make the supply ship a high value target as well
So a blend is what I advocate - not all of one or another. the Nuclear option really shows itself for independent or sustained high speed operations:
If you are out on your own, a supply chain will be very vulnerable - and expensive (another two ships (one supply, one escort for that supply) to keep one in action)
In high speed reaction, either solo or with a CVN, the endurance allows fast transit without being exhausted upon arrival, and as complete a freedom of navigation as is possible in a given situation. Arrive fast, be ready to fight and stand until the follow-up train of oil burners and supply ships come along.
That ability to consistently conduct high speed transits without fuel concerns enhances the defensibility of the asset, by increasing the potential area the enemy has to search in a given time.
Really from today forward we are probably talking about how to generate the electricity which drives a new vessel - most all will have electric drive moving forward.
Fewer platforms will mean it hurts more if one is out, however the time that a nuke would need nuke specific work (refuel) is the same time the conventional vessel needs an overhaul/rebuild (20-25+ year mark). New vessels have a very long core life projection - the S9G is projected to have a core life of 33 years, probably the life of most vessels.
As far as numbers go, to use your 10 vessel number, I would build a fleet of :
Two nuclear (for independent operations, 'first responder' roles with the fast transit, and/or fast escort of a CVN)- this would be CSGN
Four fully capable 'Turbine' ships for high density/battle group operations - this would be a Burke equivalent
Four Patrol/low intensity vessels (at approx .75 the cost of the 'full' turbine ship) - say a Diesel/CODAG - this would be a modern Frigate
So I would not see a loss in numbers, but a blend of capabilities. Not necessarily at this ratio - I was just trying to illustrate using the 10 ships mentioned above, and an Idea that a CSGN might cost 1.5 Turbine vessels, and a Frigate .75 of that turbine vessel.
I love the LM-2500 - it is very reliable and easy to maintain. It is also thirsty, and the USN is DECREASING the endurance of LM-2500 vessels in general - Burks have only a 4500nm endurance, compared to Spru's 6000nm endurance, increasing the Burke's reliance on a supply chain. this is not to say Burke's are bad - just to illustrate the navy has an endurance problem, just like when they let go of the F-14/A-6 for the short legged Hornet. Reduced range increases vulnerability for all assets involved (have to operate closer to the threat, have a smaller area of predicted operation, 'rear' units, like supply ships, have to be closer to the threat...ect)
The fossil fuel vessel does OK in Battle group operations, where many vessels are using the same supply vessel, but that limits maneuverability and make the supply ship a high value target as well
So a blend is what I advocate - not all of one or another. the Nuclear option really shows itself for independent or sustained high speed operations:
If you are out on your own, a supply chain will be very vulnerable - and expensive (another two ships (one supply, one escort for that supply) to keep one in action)
In high speed reaction, either solo or with a CVN, the endurance allows fast transit without being exhausted upon arrival, and as complete a freedom of navigation as is possible in a given situation. Arrive fast, be ready to fight and stand until the follow-up train of oil burners and supply ships come along.
That ability to consistently conduct high speed transits without fuel concerns enhances the defensibility of the asset, by increasing the potential area the enemy has to search in a given time.
Really from today forward we are probably talking about how to generate the electricity which drives a new vessel - most all will have electric drive moving forward.