Good News for the USN!

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Dis
nuclear reactors make navy ships very expensive to build and operate.

No **** Sherlock. The idea is for the ship to not have to refuel every months or carry a huge load of oil in its belly. That way it has room for other things, like missiles, mines, troops, etc...

[Igloodude]

Originally posted by Tuberski


If you read all the article, you would have seen we had nuclear powered frigates in 1964:

In May 1964, Long Beach joined the aircraft carrier Enterprise (CVN-65) and the guided missile frigate Bainbridge (DLGN-25) to form the all-nuclear-powered Task Force 1.At the end of July, the three warships began Operation Sea Orbit, a two-month unrefueled cruise around the World. It was the first all-nuclear battle formation in the history of naval operations.

ACK!

For what it's worth, USS Long Beach was the world's first nuclear-powered surface warship (USS Enterprise, commissioned a couple months later, was the second) in 1961. I think the last USN nuclear cruisers were decommissioned in 1998 or thereabouts.

And don't get confused about "frigates" - in the '60s they were bigger than the average destroyers, and were ultimately reclassified as cruisers anyway. Linky:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_1975_ship_reclassification

[Vesayen]

Re: Re: Good News for the USN!

Originally posted by Asher

WOOT! MORE WARS!!!! DIE *****ES!!!!

Because we ALL KNOW cruisers are hugely important in the modern world. Do they do anything but act as a deterrent for attacking aircraft carriers and act as hosts for massive homosexual orgies?

Yes, they also can bombard the land. Even cruisers have guns large enough to fire miles and miles past the shoreline.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Igloodude


For what it's worth, USS Long Beach was the world's first nuclear-powered surface warship (USS Enterprise, commissioned a couple months later, was the second) in 1961. I think the last USN nuclear cruisers were decommissioned in 1998 or thereabouts.

And don't get confused about "frigates" - in the '60s they were bigger than the average destroyers, and were ultimately reclassified as cruisers anyway. Linky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...classification

You need to reread the article, Destroyer Escorts (DE) were redisgnated Frigates (FF/FFG).

Which, having been in the Navy, I already knew. The Long Beach is kind of a "mutt" of a ship, BTW. It was never intended to be a "class" of ship.

ACK!

[Sandman]

Re: Re: Re: Good News for the USN!

Originally posted by Vesayen


Yes, they also can bombard the land. Even cruisers have guns large enough to fire miles and miles past the shoreline.

That'll be handy if the US runs out of planes, helicopters or missiles.

[Joseph]

We did have a total of 9 nuc. Cruisers at one time.

The USS Long Beach CGN 9 was the first. I worked on the Long Beach and was given their Mig 21 patch for doing a good job.

Next is the USS Bainbridge. Built as a DLGN and later re-classifide as a Cruiser. She to was at MI, however I was never assigned to work on her. I was on a SSBN at the time.

Next is the USS Truxtun CGN.

Then 2 ship USS California and South Carolina Class.

Last is the 4 ship USS Virginia Class

[GePap]

Originally posted by Whoha

If business saw any problem, they could act. Clearly, America's education system more then meets its demand for skilled labor.

What are you talking about? In most technical fields the US is no way meets its requirements - we import huge amounts of trained workers every year because we have to.

High wages,infrastructure, and innovation are all quite expensive things, that raise the cost of health care a lot. But yes, they are all great things to have.

And our system still vastly underperform for the cost of it. Other countries get far more healt care bang for their bucks.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Whoha

And our healthcare system has innovation,infrastructure, and high wages which are all very positive things for a healthcare system to have.

I thought American nurses are usually underpaid?

[Vesayen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Good News for the USN!

Originally posted by Sandman


That'll be handy if the US runs out of planes, helicopters or missiles.

A ship can only carry so many missles. We never, ever, ever, (EVER) want to use silos unless we need to. Why?

1. It gives the enemy a good look at our missles for the future.

2. It gives them a look inside our silos, if ever so brief.

3. Most importantly it makes everyone worry. If the U.S. suddenly launches a few ICBMs at the latest third world country it decides to invade, how does China and Russia know its not actually a first strike, at them?

A ship can shoot shells at a target till the end of time(or close enough), you can store a lot of shells. Shells are also a lot cheaper. Shells also can't be jammed. Shells don't need GPS satelites which can be disrupted, to properly function, all they need is a good balistics chart.

Missles are expensive and we don't usually want to waste them.

Planes and helicopters put the pilot in jeopardy. Shells can't be put in danger.

Shells may not always be the prefered choice and often are not, but they are still useful and desirable.

[MrFun]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Good News for the USN!

Originally posted by Vesayen

Planes and helicopters put the pilot in jeopardy. Shells can't be put in danger.

Some people have died in automobile accidents! Time to phase out ALL automobile transportation because they put drivers in jeopardy!!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whoha
If business saw any problem, they could act. Clearly, America's education system more then meets its demand for skilled labor.

Then why do you hit the H1-B quota every year within the first day?

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by MrFun



Some people have died in automobile accidents! Time to phase out ALL automobile transportation because they put drivers in jeopardy!!

.....what? That is not what I said.

What I said was that shells and cannons are desirable because we can use them instead of putting human lives in danger... well our human lives anyway heh, clearly we want to put other human lives in danger.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Vesayen


.....what? That is not what I said.

What I said was that shells and cannons are desirable because we can use them instead of putting human lives in danger... well our human lives anyway heh, clearly we want to put other human lives in danger.

You have no idea how cruise missiles work, do you?

[Kuciwalker]

Why do people even respond to him anymore?

[Patroklos]

Nuclear power is good for larger warships, of which these CGNs will qualify, but like Dis said they make vessels very expenisve to operate not to mention maintenance intesive.

Nuclear reactors also have lower performance compared to gas turbines. Smaller ships operating in tighter areas like DDGs and FFGs need that performance.

So basically it is a balance. Refueling sounds like a big deal at first, but even if you were not taking on fuel you still take on provisions just about as often (usually you do so at the same time) if you are a smaller ship. Size is liberating in a warship, eventually you reach a point where space is no longer such a premium (carrier) and you can provision for much longer (with the exception of FF&V). Again, nukes make sense for larger vessels.

You have no idea how cruise missiles work, do you?

Vesayan is largely correct.

Tomahawk = $500,000.00
5" Round = $1,500.00

Five inch rounds are a very effective and suprisingly accurate weapons system. They do only have a range of about 13nm though, which is why the ERGM was such a good idea. 50K for a munition that could go 100nm inland would alow us to take out a lot more targets cheaply.

Missiles are not only expensive, but they are big. A DDG carries only 100 odd missiles, but not all of them can be Tomahawks. You have to carry ASROCS and SM2s as well. A DDG can carrey 750 5" rounds.

So basicaly if you can take it out with a 5", you do.