Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: DDGN-51
stinger    3/6/2008 10:42:05 PM
Could a nuclear-powered version of the venerable Arleigh Burke DDG 51-class destroyer become the next missile cruiser for the U.S. Navy? That's the vision of at least one influential congressman. Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss., chairman of the seapower subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, said March 6 he is seeking to add money to the 2009 request to fund an effort to build a nuclear-powered warship that would supplant construction of the DDG 1000 destroyers. Related TopicsAmericas Naval Warfare The new ship would be a slightly larger version of the 9,200-ton DDG 51s, powered by one nuclear reactor of the type developed for the new Gerald R. Ford CVN 78-class aircraft carriers. Taylor said he would end the DDG 1000 Zumwalt class at the two ships already ordered and cancel plans to build a total of seven of the ships. "I'm more frustrated than most with the slow pace of rebuilding the fleet," Taylor said. "The answer [from the Navy] always is, 'We're studying it.' So we're going to turn the equation around a little bit." The Navy is working to design a new CG(X) cruiser based on the 16,000-ton DDG 1000 tumblehome hull, but Taylor said he doesn't see the need for that effort. "Rather than all this fooling around with a new hull design, the 51 hull has been a great hull. Everyone likes it. So if it works at that size, we want to make the calculations to grow it big enough to carry that power plant," he said. Taylor said he doesn't see the need for the stealthy, tumblehome hull form of the DDG 1000s. Although Navy leaders speak confidently of the hull's properties, lingering doubts about the ship's stability persist among a number of engineers and naval architects. The conventional, flared hull of the DDG 51 is more seaworthy and, Taylor said, stealth isn't that important for the cruiser. "We know that stealth is not an issue," he declared. "The radars are going to be so powerful that there's no way on earth you can make that ship stealthy." Taylor also is one of a number of lawmakers displaying less than full confidence in the DDG 1000 program. "A lot of us have concerns about building the seven ships for the 1000," he said. The same day, Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, expressed doubts in the DDG 1000 program. At the committee's Navy posture hearing, Hunter rhetorically asked whether it was "prudent to buy destroyers that cost over $3 billion and more likely $5 billion apiece while we shut down stable, more affordable production lines." The Navy is asking for $3 billion in the 2009 budget request to fund construction of the third ship of the class. Contracts for the first two were issued in February, and although the Navy continues to express confidence in its stated $3.3 billion price tag for each of the first two ships, outside analysts are unanimous in forecasting higher costs that range to $5 billion and beyond. Taylor has joined previous subcommittee chairman Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., as a vocal champion of nuclear power for surface ships. Since assuming chairmanship of the seapower subcommittee in early 2007, Taylor has vigorously urged the CG(X) cruisers to be nuclear-powered. Navy Leaders Balk The Navy is not enthusiastic about going to nuclear power for its surface warships. A variety of factors are at work, including the increased costs of procurement, the cost of training and retaining nuclear personnel and the involvement of the Naval Reactors community in the surface warship realm. Not surprisingly, the Navy's top leaders balked at Taylor's suggestion of a nuclear Burke. "There's a significant challenge in and of itself of going nuclear on any surface combatant," Navy Secretary Donald Winter told reporters following the hearing. "To be able to do that within fiscal constraints on an existing platform that was never designed to accommodate a nuclear reactor further complicates the matter. Never say never - I'm sure there's somebody someplace who will figure out how to do it. The question is, does that wind up being a cost-effective solution?" Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Gary Roughead, who, as a commander, commissioned the second Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, doubted a reactor could be placed in the DDG 51 hull. "I built one, crawled all through it," Roughead told reporters. "I'm not a marine engineer, but to put a nuclear power plant in that hull, even if you scale it up - I question whether you can do it." The Navy plans to buy the first CG(X) cruiser in 2011 and build 19. An analysis of alternatives (AoA) is being conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses to determine the hull form and other characteristics for the ships, which are to replace current CG 47 Ticonderoga-class Aegis missile cruisers. Service leaders want the cruiser to adopt the tumblehome hull form of the DDG 1000, but the AoA, expected to be ready last fall, is not yet complete. Congressiona
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
oxillini       3/24/2008 2:10:14 PM
Keep in mind Mr Taylor is talking about putting an A1B in a DDG-51 hull, not an S6G, S6W or S9G.  The source article says right there that that's probably not going to happen, physically.  Admiral Roughead went through new construction of a DDG-51 and can see an A1B on a Burke is like trying to mount a Caterpillar Diesel in a Corvette.  They're both nice pieces of equipment, but that doesn't make them compatible.
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID       3/31/2008 5:05:44 PM
Good idea in principle, terrible idea due to current budget constraints.
 
Good b/c the AEGIS ships currently tasked to escort carriers could really use the legs to keep up with their protectees. Also, all the extra juice for electrical systems is another plus, as AEGIS ships use a lot of power, and we can always pack more engergy intensive systems on in the future(railguns, DEWs, etc.)
 
Bad, b/c cutting manpower is a big priority for the Navy, and nuclear plants are the exact opposite of what you need for that. Gas turbines are pretty easy to run, maintain, replace. Nuclear plants bring a whole separate paper trail and maintenance requirements with them. We are hard pressed on manning as it is, particularly with supporting IAs, and this would not help.
 
Quote    Reply

ens. jack    Dumb idea   4/7/2008 12:12:12 PM
Heres another of my classic stupid not likely, unfunctional ideas. Weld Two Arleigh Burkes together. Youll lose some spped per horsepower, but if you're making a big ass boat, give it more power than needed.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics