DOCSLIB.ORG

Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018 Part 2B USA Surface Ships

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Marine Nuclear Power 1939 – 2018 Part 2B USA Surface Ships Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 2B: United States - Surface Ships Peter Lobner July 2018 1 Foreword In 2015, I compiled the first edition of this resource document to support a presentation I made in August 2015 to The Lyncean Group of San Diego (www.lynceans.org) commemorating the 60th anniversary of the world’s first “underway on nuclear power” by USS Nautilus on 17 January 1955. That presentation to the Lyncean Group, “60 years of Marine Nuclear Power: 1955 – 2015,” was my attempt to tell a complex story, starting from the early origins of the US Navy’s interest in marine nuclear propulsion in 1939, resetting the clock on 17 January 1955 with USS Nautilus’ historic first voyage, and then tracing the development and exploitation of marine nuclear power over the next 60 years in a remarkable variety of military and civilian vessels created by eight nations. In July 2018, I finished a complete update of the resource document and changed the title to, “Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018.” What you have here is Part 2B: United States - Surface Ships. The other parts are: Part 1: Introduction Part 2A: United States – Submarines Part 3A: Russia - Submarines Part 3B: Russia - Surface Ships & Non-propulsion Marine Nuclear Applications Part 4: Europe & Canada Part 5: China, India, Japan and Other Nations Part 6: Arctic Operations 2 Foreword This resource document was compiled from unclassified, open sources in the public domain. I acknowledge the great amount of work done by others who have published material in print or posted information on the internet pertaining to international marine nuclear propulsion programs, naval and civilian nuclear powered vessels, naval weapons systems, and other marine nuclear applications. My resource document contains a great deal of graphics from many sources. Throughout the document, I have identified all of the sources for these graphics. If you have any comments or wish to identify errors in this document, please send me an e-mail to: [email protected]. I hope you find this informative, useful, and different from any other single document on this subject. Best regards, Peter Lobner July 2018 3 Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Part 2B: United States Surface Ships Table of Contents Section Page US naval surface ship reactors & prototype facilities………………………………………….. 6 US Navy nuclear-powered surface ships …………………………………………………………….. 28 Evolution of the US nuclear-powered surface fleet………………………………………. 29 Nuclear-powered guided missile cruisers (CGN) …………………………...……………… 37 CGN tactical weapons ……………………………………………………………………………. 78 Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVN) ………………………………………………………. 89 Carrier strike group (CSG) & carrier air wing composition ……………………… 127 Naval nuclear vessel decommissioning and nuclear waste management………………. 140 US civilian marine nuclear vessels and reactors ………………………………..………………. 149 Operational & planned civilian marine vessels and their reactors …………………. 152 Other US civilian marine reactor designs ……………………………………………………. 176 Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) marine applications ……..………………. 228 US marine nuclear power current trends …………………………………………..………………. 234 4 Marine Nuclear Power: 1939 – 2018 Refer to Part 2A, United States - Submarines, for the following content related to US marine nuclear power: Timeline for development of marine nuclear power in the US US current nuclear vessel fleet US naval nuclear infrastructure Use of highly-enriched uranium (HEU) in US naval reactors US submarine reactors and reactor prototype facilities US Navy nuclear-powered submarines Nuclear-powered fast attack submarines (SSN) Nuclear-powered strategic ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) Nuclear-powered guided missile submarines (SSGN) Nuclear-powered special operations submarines 5 US naval surface ship reactors & prototype facilities 6 US naval reactor designation scheme Each naval reactor type is identified with a three character designator: X#X (i.e., S3G, A1W) 1st character is a letter that identifies the naval platform intended to use the reactor: S = Submarine A = Aircraft carrier C = Cruiser D = Destroyer-Leader class ship (all DLGNs were re-classified as cruisers, CGNs) 2nd character is a number that identifies the reactor design in the sequence of designs from a particular manufacturer Some reactors prototypes and their corresponding fleet reactors often were given different number designations. For example, S1W was the prototype and S2W was the similar reactor used on a submarine. 3rd character is a letter that identifies the reactor manufacturer W = Westinghouse G = General Electric C = Combustion Engineering B = Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corp. 7 US naval surface ship reactors Reactor Estimated Estimated Initial Application Reactor Propulsion ops Power Power per (MWt) Reactor (shp) CVR 390 75,000 Not • Proposed land-based prototype PWR for a single propulsion train rated at built about 75,000 shp. • Authorized in 1952 & cancelled in 1953. • Became the basis for the design of the 1st full-scale US commercial nuclear power plant at Shippingport, PA. C1W 200 40,000 1961 • 2 x C1W used only on USS Long Beach (CGN-9), yielding 80,000 shp total propulsion power. • Reportedly derived from A1W. D1G, D2G 148 30,000 1962 • D1G prototype, West Milton, NY. • 2 x D2G used on USS Bainbridge (CGN-25), USS Truxtun (CGN-35) and all California (CGN-36) and Virginia (CGN-38)-class CGNs, yielding 60,000 shp total propulsion power. D1G-2 150 30,000 1976 • Not used in any surface ship, in spite of its “D” designation. • Used as the original core in the S6G nuclear plant on 31 x 688 Flight I Los Angeles-class SSNs. One mid-life refueling required at the mid-point of sub’s 30 year service life. D1W 300 60,000 – Not • Originally conceived as a low-cost, simple, lightweight, single-reactor 70,000 built propulsion plant for a destroyer. • Project approved in 1960, but redirected in 1962 to a more powerful two- reactor design for large surface ships. • Planned to be the APHNAS submarine propulsion plant (1971). 8 US naval surface ship reactors Reactor Estimated Estimated Initial Application Reactor Propulsion ops Power Power per (MWt) Reactor (shp) D2W 165 30,000 – 1985 • Used as the mid-life refueling core for the 2 x D2G propulsion plants on 35,000 California-class (CGN-36) CGNs. • Likely reactor choice, 2 x D2W, for the CGN-42 and CSGN cruisers, which (33,500 for were not built. 688 SSNs) • Used as the mid-life refueling core in the S6G submarine propulsion plant for 20 x 688 Flight I SSNs. • Used as the original core in the S6G submarine propulsion plant for 8 x 688 Flight II and 23 x 688i Los Angeles-class SSNs. Life-of-the-boat core for the sub’s extended 33 year service life. A1W, A2W 165 35,000 1958 • 2 x A1W at the prototype at NRF Idaho (A1W-A & A1W-B) • 8 x A2W on USS Enterprise (CVN-65), yielding a total reactor power output of about 1,320 MWt and propulsion power of 280,000 shp A3W 300 70,000 Not • 4 x A3W intended for USS John F Kennedy (CVN-67), yielding a total built reactor power output of about 1,200 MWt and propulsion power of 280,000 shp • CVN-67 keel laid in 1964, but design was changed and completed as a conventionally-powered CV. A3W was not built. 9 US naval surface ship reactors Reactor Estimated Estimated Initial Application Reactor Propulsion ops Power Power per (MWt) Reactor (shp) A4W 550 130,000 1975 • Evolved from the D1W reactor design. • ¼ core was tested in the A1W-B prototype • 2 x A4W on each Nimitz-class CVN yielding a total reactor power output of about 1,100 MWt and propulsion power of 260,000 shp. • One mid-life refueling required for a 50 year CVN service life. Core life is about 25 years. A1G 550 130,000 Not This is the General Electric replacement core for the A4W. known A1B > 550 130,000 2017 • 2 x A1B on each Ford-class CVN, yielding a total reactor power output of >1,100 MWt and propulsion power of 260,000 shp. The nuclear plants on Ford-class CVNs support almost twice the electric power generating capacity as on Nimitz-class CVNs. • Core life is about 25 years. One mid-life refueling required for a 50 year CVN service life. • A1B core has 25% more energy than the A4W core. 10 Westinghouse CVR Large ship reactor (LSR) / carrier vessel reactor (CVR) “This project, known as the CVR, was instituted on the basis of a military requirement set up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That requirement stated that the CVR was to be a shore-based prototype of a single shaft for a large naval vessel such as an aircraft carrier, and to be used after completion to produce power and plutonium.” * CVR was a light-water cooled and moderated pressurized water reactor (PWR) design with an expected propulsion output of 75,000 shp (56 MW). Reactor power would have been about 390 MWt. CVR was authorized in 1952. April 1953: The CVR was eliminated from the FY 1954 defense budget. “Cancellation of the aircraft carrier reactor resulted in a letter appeal from the (Atomic Energy) Commission to the President (Eisenhower) and a special appearance before the Joint Committee (of Congress). As a result, a completely civilian version of the aircraft carrier reactor was put back in the fiscal 1954 budget…..” * The AEC transferred the entire development team to the new civilian project, while maintaining Naval Reactors is a leadership role. In their testimony before Congress, the AEC noted, “We are convinced that substantial delays would result if an attempt were made to develop some other reactor system for this first civilian powerplant.” * * Source: Hearings Before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 86th Congress, 1st Session, 11 & 15 Apr 1959 11 Westinghouse Shippingport An analog for what CVR might have been The CVR prototype design and development work done by Naval Reactors and its industrial team became the starting point for the realigned civilian project to build a PWR as the first US full-scale commercial nuclear power plant, which would become the Shippingport Atomic Power Station operated by Duquesne Light Co.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • F9f Panther Units of the Korean War
    0413&:$0.#"5"*3$3"'5t F9F PANTHER UNITS OF THE KOREAN WAR Warren Thompson © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com SERIES EDITOR: TONY HOLMES OSPREY COMBAT AIRCRAFT 103 F9F PANTHER UNITS OF THE KOREAN WAR WARREN THOMPSON © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE US NAVY PANTHERS STRIKE EARLY 6 CHAPTER TWO THE WAR DRAGS ON 18 CHAPTER THREE MORE MISSIONS AND MORE MiGS 50 CHAPTER FOUR INTERDICTION, RESCAP, CAS AND MORE MiGS 60 CHAPTER FIVE MARINE PANTHERS ENTER THE WAR 72 APPENDICES 87 COLOUR PLATES COMMENTARY 89 INDEX 95 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com US NAVY PANTHERS CHAPTER ONE STRIKE EARLY he United States’ brief period of post-World War 2 peace T and economic recovery was abruptly shattered on the morning of 25 June 1950 when troops from the communist state of North Korea crossed the 38th Parallel and invaded their neighbour to the south. American military power in the Far East had by then been reduced to a token force that was ill equipped to oppose the Soviet-backed North Korean military. The United States Air Force (USAF), which had been in the process of moving to an all-jet force in the region, responded immediately with what it had in Japan and Okinawa. The biggest problem for the USAF, however, was that its F-80 Shooting Star fighter-bombers lacked the range to hit North Korean targets, and their loiter time over enemy columns already in South Korea was severely restricted. This pointed to the need for the US Navy to bolster American air power in the region by deploying its aircraft carriers to the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Winning the Salvo Competition Rebalancing America’S Air and Missile Defenses
    WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK WINNING THE SALVO COMPETITION REBALANCING AMERICA’S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSES MARK GUNZINGER BRYAN CLARK 2016 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2016 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2005–2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, a Master of Public Administration from Central Michigan University, and a B.S. in chemistry from the United States Air Force Academy.
    [Show full text]
  • US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes
    US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes BRAD ELWARD ILLUSTRATED BY PAUL WRIGHT © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com NEW VANGUARD 211 US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS Forrestal, Kitty Hawk and Enterprise Classes BRAD ELWARD ILLUSTRATED BY PAUL WRIGHT © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 ORIGINS OF THE CARRIER AND THE SUPERCARRIER 5 t World War II Carriers t Post-World War II Carrier Developments t United States (CVA-58) THE FORRESTAL CLASS 11 FORRESTAL AS BUILT 14 t Carrier Structures t The Flight Deck and Hangar Bay t Launch and Recovery Operations t Stores t Defensive Systems t Electronic Systems and Radar t Propulsion THE FORRESTAL CARRIERS 20 t USS Forrestal (CVA-59) t USS Saratoga (CVA-60) t USS Ranger (CVA-61) t USS Independence (CVA-62) THE KITTY HAWK CLASS 26 t Major Differences from the Forrestal Class t Defensive Armament t Dimensions and Displacement t Propulsion t Electronics and Radars t USS America, CVA-66 – Improved Kitty Hawk t USS John F. Kennedy, CVA-67 – A Singular Class THE KITTY HAWK AND JOHN F. KENNEDY CARRIERS 34 t USS Kitty Hawk (CVA-63) t USS Constellation (CVA-64) t USS America (CVA-66) t USS John F. Kennedy (CVA-67) THE ENTERPRISE CLASS 40 t Propulsion t Stores t Flight Deck and Island t Defensive Armament t USS Enterprise (CVAN-65) BIBLIOGRAPHY 47 INDEX 48 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com US COLD WAR AIRCRAFT CARRIERS FORRESTAL, KITTY HAWK AND ENTERPRISE CLASSES INTRODUCTION The Forrestal-class aircraft carriers were the world’s first true supercarriers and served in the United States Navy for the majority of America’s Cold War with the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Review on Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System
    International Journal of Mechanical And Production Engineering, ISSN: 2320-2092, Volume- 5, Issue-6, Jun.-2017 http://iraj.in A BRIEF REVIEW ON ELECTROMAGNETIC AIRCRAFT LAUNCH SYSTEM 1AZEEM SINGH KAHLON, 2TAAVISHE GUPTA, 3POOJA DAHIYA, 4SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun, India E-mail: [email protected] Abstract - This paper describes the basic design, advantages and disadvantages of an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) for aircraft carriers of the future along with a brief comparison with traditional launch mechanisms. The purpose of the paper is to analyze the feasibility of EMALS for the next generation indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vishal. I. INTRODUCTION maneuvering. Depending on the thrust produced by the engines and weight of aircraft the length of the India has a central and strategic location in the Indian runway varies widely for different aircraft. Normal Ocean. It shares the longest coastline of 7500 runways are designed so as to accommodate the kilometers amongst other nations sharing the Indian launch for such deviation in takeoff lengths, but the Ocean. India's 80% trade is via sea routes passing scenario is different when it comes to aircraft carriers. through the Indian Ocean and 85% of its oil and gas Launch of an aircraft from a mobile platform always are imported through sea routes. Indian Ocean also requires additional systems and methods to assist the serves as the locus of important international Sea launch because the runway has to be scaled down, Lines Of Communication (SLOCs) . Development of which is only about 300 feet as compared to 5,000- India’s political structure, industrial and commercial 6,000 feet required for normal aircraft to takeoff from growth has no meaning until its shores are protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Assistance to Researchers in Achieving High-Quality Broader Impacts
    Assistance to Researchers in Achieving High-quality Broader Impacts 2011 COSEE Decadal Review Table of Contents COSEE California............................................................................................................................... 6 COSEE West......................................................................................................................................12 COSEE Central Gulf of Mexico......................................................................................................17 COSEE Florida (2002) ...................................................................................................................46 COSEE Southeast.............................................................................................................................52 COSEE Ocean Learning Communities .......................................................................................55 COSEE Great Lakes.........................................................................................................................70 COSEE Ocean Systems...................................................................................................................74 COSEE Alaska...................................................................................................................................77 COSEE Pacific Partnerships.........................................................................................................88 COSEE Coastal Trends...................................................................................................................95
    [Show full text]
  • Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress
    Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) Program: Background and Issues for Congress Updated September 30, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33745 SUMMARY RL33745 Navy Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) September 30, 2021 Program: Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke The Aegis ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, which is carried out by the Missile Defense Specialist in Naval Affairs Agency (MDA) and the Navy, gives Navy Aegis cruisers and destroyers a capability for conducting BMD operations. BMD-capable Aegis ships operate in European waters to defend Europe from potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as Iran, and in in the Western Pacific and the Persian Gulf to provide regional defense against potential ballistic missile attacks from countries such as North Korea and Iran. MDA’s FY2022 budget submission states that “by the end of FY 2022 there will be 48 total BMDS [BMD system] capable ships requiring maintenance support.” The Aegis BMD program is funded mostly through MDA’s budget. The Navy’s budget provides additional funding for BMD-related efforts. MDA’s proposed FY2021 budget requested a total of $1,647.9 million (i.e., about $1.6 billion) in procurement and research and development funding for Aegis BMD efforts, including funding for two Aegis Ashore sites in Poland and Romania. MDA’s budget also includes operations and maintenance (O&M) and military construction (MilCon) funding for the Aegis BMD program. Issues for Congress regarding the Aegis BMD program include the following: whether to approve, reject, or modify MDA’s annual procurement and research and development funding requests for the program; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the execution of Aegis BMD program efforts; what role, if any, the Aegis BMD program should play in defending the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq: Summary of U.S
    Order Code RL31763 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Iraq: Summary of U.S. Forces Updated March 14, 2005 Linwood B. Carter Information Research Specialist Knowledge Services Group Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Iraq: Summary of U.S. Forces Summary This report provides a summary estimate of military forces that have reportedly been deployed to and subsequently withdrawn from the U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR), popularly called the Persian Gulf region, to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. For background information on the AOR, see [http://www.centcom.mil/aboutus/aor.htm]. Geographically, the USCENTCOM AOR stretches from the Horn of Africa to Central Asia. The information about military units that have been deployed and withdrawn is based on both official government public statements and estimates identified in selected news accounts. The statistics have been assembled from both Department of Defense (DOD) sources and open-source press reports. However, due to concerns about operational security, DOD is not routinely reporting the composition, size, or destination of units and military forces being deployed to the Persian Gulf. Consequently, not all has been officially confirmed. For further reading, see CRS Report RL31701, Iraq: U.S. Military Operations. This report will be updated as the situation continues to develop. Contents U.S. Forces.......................................................1 Military Units: Deployed/En Route/On Deployment Alert ..............1
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Farquhar
    1 2 Created by Bob Farquhar For and dedicated to my grandchildren, their children, and all humanity. This is Copyright material 3 Table of Contents Preface 4 Conclusions 6 Gadget 8 Making Bombs Tick 15 ‘Little Boy’ 25 ‘Fat Man’ 40 Effectiveness 49 Death By Radiation 52 Crossroads 55 Atomic Bomb Targets 66 Acheson–Lilienthal Report & Baruch Plan 68 The Tests 71 Guinea Pigs 92 Atomic Animals 96 Downwinders 100 The H-Bomb 109 Nukes in Space 119 Going Underground 124 Leaks and Vents 132 Turning Swords Into Plowshares 135 Nuclear Detonations by Other Countries 147 Cessation of Testing 159 Building Bombs 161 Delivering Bombs 178 Strategic Bombers 181 Nuclear Capable Tactical Aircraft 188 Missiles and MIRV’s 193 Naval Delivery 211 Stand-Off & Cruise Missiles 219 U.S. Nuclear Arsenal 229 Enduring Stockpile 246 Nuclear Treaties 251 Duck and Cover 255 Let’s Nuke Des Moines! 265 Conclusion 270 Lest We Forget 274 The Beginning or The End? 280 Update: 7/1/12 Copyright © 2012 rbf 4 Preface 5 Hey there, I’m Ralph. That’s my dog Spot over there. Welcome to the not-so-wonderful world of nuclear weaponry. This book is a journey from 1945 when the first atomic bomb was detonated in the New Mexico desert to where we are today. It’s an interesting and sometimes bizarre journey. It can also be horribly frightening. Today, there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the civilized world several times over. Over 23,000. “Enough to make the rubble bounce,” Winston Churchill said. The United States alone has over 10,000 warheads in what’s called the ‘enduring stockpile.’ In my time, we took care of things Mano-a-Mano.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons Databook
    Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I11 U.S. Nuclear Warhead Facility Profiles Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume I11 U.S. Nuclear Warhead Facility Profiles Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, Robert S. Morris, and Milton M. Hoenig A book by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. BALUNGER PUBLISHING COMPANY Cambridge, Massachusetts A Subsidiary of Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. Copyright a 1987 by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or trans- mitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the publisher. International Standard Book Number: 0-88730-126-6 (CL) 0-88730-146-0 (PB) Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 82-24376 Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress CataloGng-iii-PublicationData U.S. nuclear warhead facility profiles. (Nuclear weapons databook ;v. 3) "A book by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc." Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Nuclear weapons-United States. 2. Munitions-United States. I. Cochran, Thomas B. 11. Natural Resources Defense Council. 111. Title: US nuclear warhead facility profiles. IV. Title: United States nuclear warhead facility profiles. V. Series: Cochran, Thomas B. Nuclear weapons databook ;v. 3. U264.C6 1984 vol. 3 355.8'25119'0973 87-14552 [U264] ISBN 0-88410-172-X (v. 1) ISBN 0-88410-173-8 (pbk. : v. 1) ISBN 0-88730-124-X (v. 2) ISBN 0-88730-125-8 (pbk. : v. 2) ISBN 0-88730-126-6 (v. 3) ISBN 0-88730-146-0 (pbk.
    [Show full text]
  • China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S
    China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress (name redacted) Specialist in Naval Affairs April 25, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL33153 China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities Summary The question of how the United States should respond to China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, is a key issue in U.S. defense planning and budgeting. China has been steadily building a modern and powerful navy since the early to mid-1990s. China’s navy has become a formidable military force within China’s near-seas region, and it is conducting a growing number of operations in more-distant waters, including the broader waters of the Western Pacific, the Indian Ocean, and waters around Europe. Observers view China’s improving naval capabilities as posing a challenge in the Western Pacific to the U.S. Navy’s ability to achieve and maintain control of blue-water ocean areas in wartime— the first such challenge the U.S. Navy has faced since the end of the Cold War. More broadly, these observers view China’s naval capabilities as a key element of a broader Chinese military challenge to the long-standing status of the United States as the leading military power in the Western Pacific. China’s naval modernization effort encompasses a wide array of platform and weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), submarines, surface ships, aircraft, unmanned vehicles (UVs), and supporting C4ISR (command and control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance) systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Expeditionary Strike Group: Command Structure Design Support
    Expeditionary Strike Group: Command Structure Design Support Susan G. Hutchins, William G. Kemple, David L. Kleinman, and Susan P. Hocevar Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93943 {shutchins, kemple, dlkleinman, shocevar}@nps.edu Introduction ¾ CNO’s Global Concept of Operations requires a restructured Fleet ¾ Switch from today’s 12 CVBGs to: • 12 Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs), 12 Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs), multiple Surface Action Groups (SAGs), and guided missile submarines • Operate independently to counter transnational threats and join together to form ESForces — the “gold standard” of naval power • Dispersed, netted, and operationally agile fleet, operating as part of the Joint Force to conduct a variety of missions Global Concept of Operations Designed to increase striking power, enhance flexibility, and provide more flexible, robust, and distributed offensive combat capability by transforming Amphibious Readiness Group/ Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable) ARG/MEUs into ESGs. What is an Expeditionary Strike Group? ¾ Transform a previously vulnerable, yet highly valuable, asset into a more combat credible force package: ISR, Strike/NFS, AW, ASW/SW, MIO, TBMD ¾ Combination of three Cruiser-Destroyer ships, a submarine, and a ARG/MEU(SOC) to form an ESG increases offensive/defensive capabilities (1) Power projection (2) Maritime superiority for air, surface and subsurface (3) Maritime special operations (4) Amphibious operations (5) Military operations other than war (6) Enabling operations (7) Supporting
    [Show full text]
  • US Navy Flight Deck Hearing Protection Use Trends
    U.S. Navy Flight Deck Hearing Protection Use Trends: Survey Results Valerie S. Bjorn Naval Air Systems Command AEDC/DOF 740 Fourth Street Arnold AFB, TN 38389-6000, USA [email protected] Christopher B. Albery Advanced Information Engineering Services - A General Dynamics Company 5200 Springfield Pike, WP-441 Dayton, OH 45431, USA [email protected] CDR Russell Shilling, Ph.D., MSC, USN Office of Naval Research - Medical and Biological S&T Division 800 N Quincy Street Arlington, VA 22217-5860, USA [email protected] Richard L. McKinley Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL/HECB) 2610 Seventh Street, Bldg 441 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7901 [email protected] ABSTRACT Hearing loss claims have risen steadily in the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs across all military services for decades. The U.S. Navy, with U.S. Air Force and industry partners, is working to improve hearing protection and speech intelligibility for aircraft carrier flight deck crews who work up to 16 hours per day in 130-150 dB tactical jet aircraft noise. Currently, flight deck crews are required to wear double hearing protection: earplugs and earmuffs (in cranial helmet). Previous studies indicated this double hearing protection provides approximately 30 dB of noise attenuation when earplugs are inserted correctly and the cranial/earmuffs are well-fit and in good condition. To assess hearing protection practices and estimate noise attenuation levels for active duty flight deck crews, Naval Air Systems Command surveyed 301 U.S. Navy Atlantic and Pacific Fleet flight deck personnel from four aircraft carriers and two amphibious assault ships.
    [Show full text]