Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!dogie!indri!aplcen!haven!rutgers!att!cbnews!royf@roxanne.StPaul.GOV
From: royf@roxanne.StPaul.GOV (Roy Forsstrom)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Nuclear navy in combat (was cold fission)
Message-ID: <5672@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 15 Apr 89 04:19:02 GMT
References: <5538@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Public Works Computer Center, St. Paul, MN 55102
Lines: 62
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: royf@roxanne.StPaul.GOV (Roy Forsstrom)

In article <5538@cbnews.ATT.COM> nelson_p@apollo.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>The Navy would love to power its DDs/FFs with nuclear power TODAY, but
>>they are having problems manning nuclear powered ships as it is with
>>the expertise that is necessary. They don't want to add to the problem.
   This was one of Rickover's biggest complaints. He believed that 
   high school science and math were inadequate. Most of the nukes I
   worked with were college dropouts. {Many of us did go back,though!}

>>A nuclear powered escort complements the CVNs and CGNs and frees them 
>>from the logistics of tankering large amounts of fuel oil (or diesel) 
>>for these ships.
   The Nimitz/California/Texas?/attack sub task force that sailed around
   Africa for the Gulf of Oman from Italy in Jan 1980 did it in 18 days at 
   flank speed the entire trip. 

>  Do fission-powered vessels present any particular problems in 
>  a combat situation?  That is, if they are hit, hulled, catch-fire,
>  etc, do they present any unique hazards by virtue of having radioactive
>  fuel?  Is there any danger of leakage of radioactive material, con-
>  tamination of the crew, 'melt-down', etc?  I am not very familiar 
>  with the technology involved so if this is a stupid question, break
>  it to me gently.  Thank you.
    Of course, there were hazards. But, the reactors on the California were
    well shielded, and I believed quite secure until the Falklands 
    episode proved otherwise. The reactor compartment was designed to 
    keep radiation inside, no coolant left the compartment as steam was
    made with steam generators (heat exchangers). The ventilation system
    was designed to shutdown and close up at the slightest overpressure.

    No digital computers were used in the operation of the power plant
    for reliability in the harsh environment. Humans are better able 
    to reconfigure in the event of an emergency, anyway. There were 
    strict rules on operation of the plant, but the captain could override
    any of them for the safety of the ship or to meet the ship's mission.

    My biggest worry, as reactor operator, was what might happen {politically}
    if an accident occurred while anchored in a foreign harbor. In the late
    70's we were not permitted in France, Sweden, the Suez Canal and
    of course New Zealand, among others. In Spain, we had to keep one 
    reactor operating and have another ship, a DD, in port with a 
    powerplant in short standby to tow us out to sea if necessary. 
    The same precautions were used when we visited the Naval Academy,
    if I remember correctly.

>[mod.note:  I should think that fusion plants would, by and large,
>be less dangerous when hit.  If the reactor is hit, the worst that
>could happen is the release of superheated heavy water steam [am I
    I am surprised at the interest in fusion power for these ships. I
    believe it is still many, many years away. A good short term alternative
    could be the Sterling engine the Swede's are using in their new
    sub design.

[mod.note:  I'm not familiar with this.  Care to elaborate ?  - Bill ]

Roy Forsstrom
Public Works Computer Center     royf@pwcs.StPaul.GOV
St. Paul, MN 55102