Why doesn't America have nuclear-powered cruisers?

>>31053438
>Nuclear-powered

You mean tugboat-powered, right?

>>31053471

No that's their carrier.

File: 1471204766152.png (344KB, 476x346px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 476x346px

>>31053490
>Implying that isn't their whole navy

See that tow-line sticking off its bow?

>>31053438
The USN had 9 Nuclear powered cruisers. They were far too expensive to run, crew and fuel compared to the benefits of Nuclear propulsion for a SW ship. Subs and Carriers are the only ship classes it makes sense to go nuclear with.

Also, lern 2 history.

USN nuclear powered cruisers:
>Bainbridge
>California
>South Carolina
>Long Beach
>Virginia
>Texas
>Mississippi
>Arkansas
>Truxtun

File: 1471009388792.jpg (10KB, 264x191px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 264x191px

>>31053514

>mfw he's actually right

>>31053438
They used to. They all got retired by the end of the 90s because they were too expensive.

And I don't think anybody feels threatened by the Velikiy. Certainly not because of nuclear-propulsion of all things.

>>31053438

Because the USN actually goes to sea,

File: wat.jpg (51KB, 705x533px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 705x533px

>>31053438
>nuclear-powered cruisers
we do....

File: edab7101-f53f-46b1-a694-7adb477233b0.gif (495KB, 500x244px) Image search: [Google]

495KB, 500x244px

>>31053438
>serious navy like Russia

As someone that works in NAVSEA 08 it's all about the cost of the ship over its life time and how it affects it's operations. A destroyer or cruiser doesn't need the endurance or compact power plant that a CVN or SSN needs.

And by the way the Ford's propulsion plant is an amazing propulsion plant but there are a ton of problems with the software that controls the Steam Turbines and Diesel Generators, it's so bad that it's destroyed one of the four MTGs.

ITT: Vatniks dickwave over their 1 operational out of 4 built nuclear cruisers all laid down 30+ years ago, not realizing the US built and operated 9 of them, but decided they were stupid expensive to run.

>>31053606
I know a guy in 08T that seems like the perfect person that would post on /k/. Speaking from someone who works in a private shipyard.

>>31053540
There was some early research into a cgn(x) when cg(x) was a thing. Since the Zummie actually went into production the entire thing was shelved. I wouldn't be surprised to see the concept pop back up in the future if energy intensive weapons are successful on the Zumwalt and require a more powerful propulsion plant in a bigger ship.

>>31053540

The Virginia class ships were relatively economical, the post cold war tax cuts killed them since they had the bad luck to have their scheduled reactor overhauls under Clinton and having to compete with the vastly more capable Burkes and Ticos for budget.

>>31053587
/r/shittytumblrgifs

>>31053703
The USN will never build a SW ship larger than the Zumwalt. It just makes zero sense in the age of turbine generators, VLS cells, mass/volume-affordable bow and towed sonar arrays and SPY-n radars. Everything you need to make an excellent surface combatant can be done on 15ktons. Past that, you're just putting more eggs in one basket when it makes far more tactical and economic sense to spread them out in as many ships as possible.

>>31053737
Virginias needed 579 total crew, at least 100 of which needed to be nukes. That's a massive, massive investment in training and increased pay plus retention bonuses.

Ticos need 400 crew (often run on less than 360 these days), no nuke-qualified crew, less maintenance and far, far more capability on roughly the same tonnage.

Also, what killed ALL the nuke cruisers before the end of the 90's (even though many of them could have technically been serving today) was the lack of Mk41 cells. They all had Mk13 and Mk26 missile launcher arm systems, and could only launch up to the SM-2MR. They also had their ASW capabilities gutted in the early 90's updates. By 1996, they just didn't make any damn sense when looking at cost VS capability.

>>31053681

08T is nice because they work on all the cool parts of the fluid systems.

I'm one of the fleet returnees in the building and its nice to provide an operator's prospective in the development of the new plants and operation systems.

>>31053737
>The 1996 Navy Visibility and Management of Operating and Support Costs (VAMOSC) study determined the annual operating cost of a Virginia-class cruiser at $40 million, compared to $28 million for a Ticonderoga-class cruiser, or $20 million for an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, the latter two classes designed with the much more capable Aegis Combat System.

Also, Virginia had completed her refueling and all upgrades and Texas was most of the way through it all when the decision to cancel them was made.

>>31053861

They actually recycled the fuel from these boat's refueling load into bloomer cores.

>>31053851
Ya. I've only ever met two 08T guys and I'm more familiar with 08E. If you work in that area you may see my name on some things. Getting ready to help put out a new manual chapter.

>>31053861
Shit, my bad. It was the California (and later South Carolina) that got a full refuel and upgrade in 1990. None of the Virginias completed a refuel and upgrade before the ax fell. That's why the Cali and SCar were both in commission longer than any of the Virginias.

>>31053925

All those boats were designed to be refuled twice, their operational lifes were cut short because of the difference in capabilities and the lack of a need for indefinite operational life.

>>31053907

08E has some of the best jobs. They manage all of the post Los Angeles class subs. I talk to them a lot when we do our weakly design reviews of the Ohio Replacement.

How disasterous would be the destruction of a nuclear-powered ship?

>>31054049
We're on the same project man, apparently in the same areas for our respective organizations. Now I'm sure you'll see my name at some point.

>>31054068

There are several nuclear submarines at the bottom of the ocean now.

>>31054068
Of the 10 or so nuke subs on the bottom right now, none of them show significant contamination outside the hull. Not even much of a heat bloom on any of them.

File: 1455610305203.png (519KB, 1023x708px) Image search: [Google]

519KB, 1023x708px

>>31053514
That's the anchor line you dipshit.

>>31054173
Sorry, make that 8 total. Kursk was raised and only 9 ever sank (though there were dozens of major fires and containment incidents on nuke boats, about 4/5ths of which were on USSR/Russian boats). 2 USN boats (Thresher 1963, Scorpion 1968) and 7 USSR/Russian boats (K-27 1982, K-8 1970, K-219 1986, K-278 1989, K-429 actually sank twice, K-141 2000, and K-159 2003)

>>31053763
Yet he's still completely right

>>31054173
Water is a great way of shielding from radiation, you just need a lot of it.

File: USS_Scorpion_(SSN-589)_H97221k.jpg (93KB, 740x515px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 740x515px

>>31054316
Right, but there was some concern that in an imploded hull there would be silt infiltration and then that contaminated silt would be carried by current to contaminate long stretches of the sea floor.

To my knowledge, this hasn't happened. The US does periodic inspections of the Thresher and Scorpion (and probably the Soviet/Russian boats as well) to study environmental impact and they've found that the reactor compartments remain contained, with nothing being transported off on the current.

>The U.S. Navy has periodically monitored the environmental conditions of the site since the sinking and has reported the results in an annual public report on environmental monitoring for U.S. nuclear-powered ships and boats. The reports provide specifics on the environmental sampling of sediment, water, and marine life that is done to ascertain whether the submarine has significantly affected the deep-ocean environment. The reports also explain the methodology for conducting this deep sea monitoring from both surface vessels and submersibles. The monitoring data confirm that there has been no significant effect on the environment. The nuclear fuel aboard the submarine remains intact and no uranium in excess of levels expected from the fallout from past atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons has been detected by the Navy's inspections. In addition, Scorpion carried two nuclear-tipped Mark 45 anti-submarine torpedoes (ASTOR) when she was lost. The warheads of these torpedoes are part of the environmental concern. The most likely scenario is that the plutonium and uranium cores of these weapons corroded to a heavy, insoluble material soon after the sinking, and they remain at or close to their original location inside the torpedo room of the boat. If the corroded materials were released outside the submarine, their density and insolubility would cause them to settle into the sediment.

>>31054198

The anchors are under that line
you dipshit

File: 1457545883372.gif (276KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 500x378px

>>31053438
>serious navy
>like Russia
Surely you jest

File: uss-thresher02.jpg (25KB, 475x382px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 475x382px

>>31054407
Fucking based Bob Ballard
>According to newly declassified information, the Navy sent Commander (Dr.) Robert Ballard, the oceanographer credited with locating the wreck of RMS Titanic, on a secret mission to map and collect visual data on both Thresher and Scorpion wrecks.[14] The Navy used Ballard's search for Titanic as a screen to hide the mission. Ballard approached the Navy in 1982 for funding to find Titanic with his new deep-diving robot submersible. The Navy saw the opportunity and granted him the money on the condition he first inspect the two submarine wrecks. Ballard's robotic survey discovered that Thresher had sunk so deep that it imploded, turning into thousands of pieces. The only recoverable piece was a foot of marled pipe.[15] His 1985 search for Scorpion revealed such a large debris field that it looked "as though it had been put through a shredding machine." Once the two wrecks had been visited, and the radioactive threat from both was established as small, Ballard was able to search for Titanic. Due to dwindling funds, he had just 12 days to do so, but he used the same debris-field search techniques he had used for the two subs, which worked, and Titanic was found.