- Joined
- Apr 28, 2012
- Messages
- 21,004
- Reaction score
- 10,102
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It is a combination of a great many things.
For training basic technicians to operate boilers and turbines, it only takes a few months. And the maintenance is pretty straightforward. Every part of the system can be worked on at any time, so any port call can be used to do various levels of maintenance.
For a nuclear ship however, it takes at least 9 months to train them, they have to have significantly higher ASVAB scores, and be able to hold a Secret security clearance. This means you have a lot fewer available technicians able to hold down the job.
And a lot of your maintenance can only be done in ports that are able to handle that kind of work. So many routine services done anywhere for a conventional destroyer can only be done in the home port or specialized shipyards (this was a major task for Mare Island, doing major overhauls of nuclear subs).
Also because of safety requirements you simply needed more people. This is not a problem on a large ship like a Carrier, but it was more troublesome on a smaller ship like a Destroyer.
Also there is the main issue that so much power really is not needed on a ship the size of a destroyer. With the advances in naval power plants, not even the Ticonderoga class cruisers with their large RADAR and fire control systems needed a nuclear power plant, a gas turbine was more then enough.
During the decades where we operated the "Nuclear Navy", it was realized that nuclear destroyers and cruisers were simply not needed, and it was a better use of manpower and money to put them into the large ships that could really benefit from that kind of power (or submarines, where silence is of the utmost importance). And unless some kind of new propulsion technology which renders the screw obsolete and requires a large amount of electricity comes out, I do not see this changing any time soon.
And when you think about it, the Destroyer is basically the least expansive and most expendable ship in the fleet. That is why they stand picket for the big ships they protect, to take the hits instead of your major surface combatants. Putting nuke plants in ships like that is simply foolish (which is another reason why the Bainbridge was designated from a Destroyer to a Cruiser).
All good points. But I am thinking because of the need for major amounts of electrical power now with the all electric ships the Navy wants, it might want to reconsider the nuclear option again for at least the ships equipped for the upcoming railgun technologies which are very power intensive. They may well have to upgrade their ports to handle a more nuclear navy.
I am surprised that the nuclear ships now would need more personnel considering the automation technology we have. Further the 4th gen reactors like pebble bed and others can be made quite a bit safer and bubba resistant, (notice I said bubba resistant not proof. Bubbas ALWAYS find a way to **** things up. Its their life's work ya know.) and MUCH less maintenance intensive. With far fewer radioactive critical parts as well.