<Wed Open Thread (and the XOM boycott) The Oil Drum Another picture that tells a story>

14 comments on The view from OPEC

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Arch Stanton on April 20, 2006 - 12:04am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top
This is how the DoD sees it :

DoD Broadens Energy Efficiency Focus
including consideration of an all-nuclear Navy.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,94739,00.html

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on April 20, 2006 - 6:10am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Arch,

Buried in that article is Bartlett's point that it makes sense for the Amphib carriers like our BATAAN Marine carrier (the smaller carriers that carry helicopters and harriers). Possibly/probably some of the large transports and the like could qualify for Nuke engines, but the navy is having a difficult problem with rapidly escalating costs and a lack of numbers in total ships.

At least they are talking about it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
cynus on April 20, 2006 - 8:41am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
What happens if, say, a nuclear powered amphibious carrier, is crusing in, say, just for example, the Persian Gulf towards, say, Iran, and hits a mine or is torpedoed and sinks.  Will it maybe, say, destroy all life within several hundred miles?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on April 20, 2006 - 9:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Most likely it will remain like our subs and the Soviet subs that were lost in the Cold War, like the THRESHER, at the bottom of the sea. Ocean water pressure tends to keep the ships together, which is why you do not see the TITANIC littered over the ocean bottom for hundreds of miles.

If the nuke plant on board was hit directly and it shattered, it would spread out some more.

All the more reason for the good guys to win and the bad guys need to lose!

Think of it as an underwater exposed uranium deposit.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
PeakOilPete on April 20, 2006 - 3:35pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
well, what if that amphibious nuclear vehicle hit a mine while it was scurrying across the sands of some such mid-eastern nation?  how well protected are the nuclear components?
-pop
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on April 20, 2006 - 11:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
PeakOilPete,

The main protection of our larger warships is precisely that. They are large. So it would come down, in my mind, to two things.

  1. where did it hit/explode? If it is the bow, not unusual for a mine, the power plant probably stays intact and the ship survives.

  2. a hit that is amidships and goes deep into a warship, such as from a missile, like the Sunburn, the damage is much worse.

And of course, one of the worst things the USN is at is mine-clearing and most damage since the end of WWII to our warships has been from mine related type stuff. I forget the exact figure but it is like 15 our 19 damaged warships since the end of WWII has been due to mine-related weapons.

Armor plate is out of fashion these days.

There is the factor here that our older ships were built with the wrong material (light weight stuff that gets hot easily and burns too) while the newer warships are supposed to be better.

But you still run the risk of nuclear contamination. But it is not the end of the world.

One final thought, the size of crews on the new ships, especially those being built right now, have small to tiny crews compared to the old days. Less hands to do damage control. . . . it is a factor being debated in the halls of Washington and the Pentagon.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

14 comments on The view from OPEC

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version