Will we ever see a nuclear surface combatant again, /k/?

Carriers

>>32665765

That of which the respective primary mission isn't aerial warfare support I didn't thing I needed to add.

File: 1144 pyotr velikiy (9).jpg (181KB, 1600x1011px) Image search: [Google]

181KB, 1600x1011px

>>32665741
Privyet.

>>32665741
Ice breakers

It isn't cost effective. At the time in the Cold War that nuclear cruisers were built, the premium for their speed and endurance was acceptable, but with modern budgets this is no longer the case. In a time of tight budgets, a nuclear navy is a smaller navy, and that means ship numbers will be smaller.

Also, the latest IEP propulsion technology has advanced greatly in recent decades, so the performance gap between nuclear and non-nuclear is smaller (better than diesel or conventional steam).

>>32665881

That may be true, but I will tell you: I am on a Ticonderoga escort in the 7th fleet. If we could endure as long as the carrier we could patrol china Russia and Korea a lot More effectively. I know the costs and shit but it would change the logistics and effectiveness of our SCS patrols.

not while a nuclear reactor costs upwards of 500 million and would melt down if the ship was attacked

>>32665881
Theres really no essential reason that a nuclear reactor should cost so much

>>32665935
yea but CBG patrols are makework peacetime crap

>>32666001

>Theres really no essential reason that a nuclear reactor should cost so much

The USN takes nuclear safety seriously, you can't really cut costs beyond a certain point plus the decommissioning cost afterwards needs to be included.

While you could get some economy of scale by using essentially the same reactor as the Virginia-class, that pales in comparison to that available for conventional power. Not just diesel generators (very widely used, but also the high performance marine gas turbines, like the RR MT30 (which is being used in some of the latest warships) are based on widely used civil aviation designs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_MT30

>The Rolls-Royce MT30 (Marine Turbine) is a marine gas turbine engine based on Rolls-Royce Trent 800 aero engine. The MT30 retains 80% commonality with the Trent 800, the engine for the Boeing 777

>>32666059
If the US restarts building nuclear reactors on land, they could share designs with naval reactors

>>32665810

Not only Kirovs again but apparently the Lidr class will have nuclear reactors

>Inb4 hurrrr if it ever comes out of the design phase

>>32665810
Fuck Kirovs are sexy I got a model one at home
1990s design with the 2 aft guns and extra ciws

File: Open-Pit-2.jpg (97KB, 900x883px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 900x883px

>>32666102

>If the US restarts building nuclear reactors on land, they could share designs with naval reactors

Naval reactors only share their basic operating principal with onshore pressurised water reactors.
Theyre vastly different on every other level.
They use high enriched uranium as opposed to low enriched uranium.
Also theyre absolutely tiny, there is no major part of a land based reactor that you could also install on a ship.

Pic is of decommissioned reactor compartments being disposed of.

>>32666102

Naval nuclear plant designs differ greatly from those on land because of the different priorities. Especially for a 10,000-20,000 t vessel, where energy density is at a premium.

Though, I meant not just the cost savings of the design, but the manufacturing capacity. Even if you used the same S9G generator on the Virginia-class submarine to power a surface vessel, you're still looking at a design which is made on a small scale (only 48 Virginia subs are planned), while thousands of Trent engines have been made due to their wide usage in civil aviation, which is also a very competitive business environment compared to defense.

>>32665881
Wait until oil runs out. If we haven't left the planet, then we will still need surface warships. Only nukes can provide the power and range, if not the cost of oil.

Anyone who believes that nuclear power is the end-all for surface ships should really read the NAO report. It literally states that they found little difference between conventional and nuclear in operational effectiveness. With at best, a marginal differences in requirements for replenishment with the same average sortie rate.

>>32666179
FUCK!

radioactivity is my number 1 fear. you can see spiders and shit but radiation just kills you in the most disrespectful fashion with no indication of its presence

File: 800x600_X99t0RWueIs2Sf4wZKp6.jpg (227KB, 800x491px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 800x491px

>>32665741
Russians building new generation of nuclear icebreakers.

>>32666208
bet you don't even have a geiger counter and one of those tags that go dark on exposure to radiation

liar

File: attic882-27.jpg (81KB, 900x503px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 900x503px

>>32666208

>radioactivity is my number 1 fear. you can see spiders and shit but radiation just kills you in the most disrespectful fashion with no indication of its presence.

Radioactive material is actually very easy to detect compared to other harmful substances like heavy metals for example.

pic related.

>>32666179
>They use high enriched uranium as opposed to low enriched uranium.

Thats a political thing, for land based reactors not to use highly enriched uranium.
These inherent differences do not exist in physics, just in politics/regulations.

>>32666191
Thats what I mean, if you had some cost effective self-contained reactor, good for 30+ years, needing only water/coolant supply, you could build thousands of them to power commercial ships/military ships/logistics vessels/land power supply

Dnno, just a thought.

>>32666208

It's over rated.

>>32666224
>>32666261
guys guys guys. i never once admitted to wanting to stay alive. I'd just rather know about it before hand

I wonder if they'd even be able to field enough nuclear techs if there were many more nuke plants on vessels tbqh