Shipbucket

Yeah, as with most good military ideas, the politicians often get in the way. I was just reading up on the CSGN on Global Security about how congress basically killed the idea of the CSGN. It's too bad that happened, but I can see the point congress had. Who needs a big CSGN when the Soviet navy was mostly composed of submarine forces?

It was an idea that was floated around but ultimately expense got in the way (specifically the operating expenses of CGN-42). Remember, this is why we got CG-47.
Politics didn't get in the way, money killed it. Despite what a lot of people think giving the military-industrial complex a blank check is inefficient and to put it bluntly, stupid.

To give it some perspective, that's exactly what the Soviet Union did.

Yeah, unfortunately, the idea of nuclear powered ships sounds great until you have to refuel them in ten or fifteen years. Ultimately, losing the CGNs was probably for the best, since the CG-47s have turned out to be pretty capable warships.

And I only meant politics getting in the way because Congress kept the Navy from getting what it wanted, which was probably a good thing. And yeah, giving the military a blank check is definitely not the best way to do things.

Scrap everything else and buy more Burkes.

There, you're done.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

FORWARD BURKESWARM

We now have designs that can pretty much last the lifetime of the ship without needing refueling, so it's something the Navy's been looking into again, especially for any big cruiser that's going to operate Super-Duper AEGIS and especially if you put lasers on top of that.

Yeah, I've heard the new reactors going into the new Virginia subs can go over 3 decades without refueling. I haven't heard much about the new reactors for the Ford-class carriers though. Something like that would be a good idea if they ever get laser weapons or rail guns into operation since both weapon systems require massive amounts of electrical power.

I can understand not refuelling CGN's as they came up on end-of-core-life, but the Californias were both early into their second cores when they were defuelled and decommissioned.

SoCar-37

_________________
SoCar37

"Prepared In Mind & Resources"

It's not just the cost of nuclear refueling, but the operating cost of a nuclear ship that makes them more expensive. They have large, extensive, labor-intensive steam plants that are expensive to maintain and operate. The Ticonderoga cruisers have four gas tubines that are relatively small, compact, and easier to maintain. Plus, the Californias were far more limited in their capabilities than either the Virginias or the Ticonderogas. They had Mk 13 GMLSs which severely limited the types of weapons they could use, and when they were refueled and overhauled, they also had all of their ASW capabilities removed, so basically, all they had was short-to-medium range air defense capabilities. That plus their operating cost just didn't make them cost-effective once the Ticonderogas started to come online.

What is the tonnage on the second design here, I would like to put her through a few rounds on the table top to see if this beast can really be effective.

I have found converting these designs for Harpoon 4.1 rules can really show if they are good concepts.