Going Fission: America's Nuclear Navy

Initially, there were plans to produce more than one Enterprise class nuclear powered aircraft carrier, however these were cancelled due to budget cuts. The USS Long Beach nuclear powered cruiser and USS Bainbridge nuclear powered destroyer leader (later reclassified as a nuclear powered cruiser) were built around the same time, and in May 1964 all three ships came together to form the first nuclear powered naval unit, Task Force 1. The Long Beach was equipped with the powerful SCANFAR radar and Talos missiles, making it something of a precursor to the later AEGIS system.

Historically, the United States didn't begin mass production of nuclear powered aircraft carriers until ordering USS Nimitz in March 1967. Mass production of nuclear powered cruisers didn't start until May 1968, when USS California was ordered. Assuming that nuclear powered ships could be mass produced in the late 1950s and early 1960s, what kind of impact would an earlier start to the nuclear navy have had on United States Navy planning and procurement? Might the United States Navy have retained nuclear powered cruisers, and perhaps even built nuclear powered destroyers?

Honestly I doubt that the changes will be all that great. Obviously the Kitty Hawk Class gets butterflied, and that will have knock on effects on carrier classes later, but overall I don't see it creating a big shift. As far as surface combatants go, remember that USS Bainbridge was commissioned as a destroyer leader, albeit a large one. More cruisers seem likely, but the whole thing seems mostly likely to end as OTL, with nuclear ships getting a reputation as more expensive than they are worth.

It might not be unreasonable to imagine a TL in which this earlier nuclear fleet leads to all nuclear carrier groups being an accepted fact and the Ticonderoga equivalent being nuclear, but I suspect it's much more likely that earlier nuclear escorts would be even more problematic than OTL's nuclear cruisers and be similarly pushed into retirement without direct replacement.

As far as destroyers, you might get a prototype, there's certainly no physical reason a submarine sized reactor couldn't power a destroyer, but it just doesn't seem like the best choice for the mission they are designed for. A nuclear Burke or Spruance class is just going to be an oddball ship no matter what you do, imo to the point that its almost inconceivable to see more than one or two largely experimental DDGN's built. A nuclear Tico though is something that would probably have ended up looking better and better as time went on, really becoming of obvious value once ballistic missile patrols become a reality.

The Truxtun was also part of the Enterprise's nuclear task force, and between them they had 2 x C1W, 4 x D2G and 8 x A2W reactors.

If the JFK had been nuke it would have had 4 x A3W reactors.

Given the output of nuke subs at the time I wonder what the production capacity was for naval reactors in the mid 60s, in particular the D2G? The Bainbridge had 2 x D2G by 1961, Truxtun had 2 by 1964 and the California's had 2 each by 1971 and 1972. Perhaps one reason why there was a 7 year gap between Truxtun and California was because there was a shortage of production capacity for naval reactors with the build up of the SSN and SSBN fleets in the 60s? In the 60s the USN built 41 SSBNs and 51 fleet SSNs plus a couple of experimental SSNs, almost 100 naval reactors in a decade, which strikes me as a lot.

Bureaucromancer said:

Honestly I doubt that the changes will be all that great. Obviously the Kitty Hawk Class gets butterflied, and that will have knock on effects on carrier classes later, but overall I don't see it creating a big shift. As far as surface combatants go, remember that USS Bainbridge was commissioned as a destroyer leader, albeit a large one. More cruisers seem likely, but the whole thing seems mostly likely to end as OTL, with nuclear ships getting a reputation as more expensive than they are worth.

Click to expand...

The Kitty Hawk class actually predates Enterprise, but nuclear aircraft carriers could replace the America and John F. Kennedy. Note that historically, the John F. Kennedy was considered for nuclear power. As for nuclear cruisers, I think they ended up being retired without replacement because there weren't enough of them to play a major role in the USN fleet structure, and because their nuclear overhauls coincided with the 1990s fleet reductions. Newer naval nuclear reactors need few to no refueling cycles over the life of the ship, making nuclear propulsion more of an issue for construction and decommissioning than for operational availability.

It might not be unreasonable to imagine a TL in which this earlier nuclear fleet leads to all nuclear carrier groups being an accepted fact and the Ticonderoga equivalent being nuclear, but I suspect it's much more likely that earlier nuclear escorts would be even more problematic than OTL's nuclear cruisers and be similarly pushed into retirement without direct replacement.

Click to expand...

Apart from cost and refueling cycles, were there any major issues with the nuclear powered cruisers? USS Long Beach was the first nuclear powered cruiser of the USN and served 35 years, retiring alongside the newer nuclear powered cruisers. It might have served even longer, as it was retired before a nuclear refueling cycle. 35 years is a long career for a cruiser, especially one that was a prototype for so many things. If there were major issues i don't think it would have had such longevity in service.

As far as destroyers, you might get a prototype, there's certainly no physical reason a submarine sized reactor couldn't power a destroyer, but it just doesn't seem like the best choice for the mission they are designed for. A nuclear Burke or Spruance class is just going to be an oddball ship no matter what you do, imo to the point that its almost inconceivable to see more than one or two largely experimental DDGN's built. A nuclear Tico though is something that would probably have ended up looking better and better as time went on, really becoming of obvious value once ballistic missile patrols become a reality.

Click to expand...

I was thinking more about destroyers assigned to carrier battle groups. Ships intended for theater service can use conventional facilities, but those assigned to carrier battle groups and other long range task forces could benefit from the high endurance allowed by nuclear power, as well as the simplified and reduced logistics of an all nuclear unit. Only consumables and munitions would have to be transported, as well as fuel for naval aviation. Timing refueling of escorts can be a major headache, and partial nuclear power only lessens the issue, it doesn't resolve it.

Riain said:

The Truxtun was also part of the Enterprise's nuclear task force, and between them they had 2 x C1W, 4 x D2G and 8 x A2W reactors.

If the JFK had been nuke it would have had 4 x A3W reactors.

Given the output of nuke subs at the time I wonder what the production capacity was for naval reactors in the mid 60s, in particular the D2G? The Bainbridge had 2 x D2G by 1961, Truxtun had 2 by 1964 and the California's had 2 each by 1971 and 1972. Perhaps one reason why there was a 7 year gap between Truxtun and California was because there was a shortage of production capacity for naval reactors with the build up of the SSN and SSBN fleets in the 60s? In the 60s the USN built 41 SSBNs and 51 fleet SSNs plus a couple of experimental SSNs, almost 100 naval reactors in a decade, which strikes me as a lot.

Click to expand...

Originally there were plans for five more Enterprise class aircraft carriers, with eight nuclear reactors each. I don't think there would have been plans for such an ambitious building program if nuclear reactor production was likely to become a bottleneck.

Plans for five Enterprises each with 8 x A2W could not have lasted very long. USS America was planned to be another Enterprise, but the JFK was not, it was to have 4 x A3W reactors in 1964. It's pretty easy to fill the nuclear carrier gap between Enterprise and Nimitz with a nuke America with 8 x A2W and a nuke JFK with 4 x A3W.

What appears to be a bit more difficult is filling the gap between the Long Beach/Bainbridge/Truxtun and the California class. Presumably a nuke America and JFK will each need a pair of nuke escorts, but unlike the Bainbridge and Truxtun there is no class under construction in the mid-late 60s that can be adapted to nuclear cruisers. Perhaps a dedicated nuclear cruiser class would be needed, but what would it look like and what weapons would it have?

Riain said:

Plans for five Enterprises each with 8 x A2W could not have lasted very long. USS America was planned to be another Enterprise, but the JFK was not, it was to have 4 x A3W reactors in 1964. It's pretty easy to fill the nuclear carrier gap between Enterprise and Nimitz with a nuke America with 8 x A2W and a nuke JFK with 4 x A3W.

What appears to be a bit more difficult is filling the gap between the Long Beach/Bainbridge/Truxtun and the California class. Presumably a nuke America and JFK will each need a pair of nuke escorts, but unlike the Bainbridge and Truxtun there is no class under construction in the mid-late 60s that can be adapted to nuclear cruisers. Perhaps a dedicated nuclear cruiser class would be needed, but what would it look like and what weapons would it have?

Click to expand...

I wrote an mini-timeline about what the aircraft carrier and cruiser could have looked like, and what they might have been equipped with. I don't have any nuclear powered destroyers in the timeline right now though. I'm going to post it right now.

This has more alternate history than just nuclear powered ships. I'll put up a guide to the ahistorical aircraft soon.

Columbia Class Aircraft Carrier



The Columbia class was the second generation of nuclear powered aircraft carriers to enter service with the United States Navy, following the USS Enterprise. Eager to avoid the significant cost overruns of the Enterprise, the design used four A3W nuclear reactors instead of eight A2W nuclear reactors. The Columbia class has formed the backbone of the United States Navy's nuclear fleet for decades, alongside the Samar class. In 2014 Columbia was replaced by the USS Midway, the first of a new class of aircraft carriers.

Typical Columbia Class Air Group Complement (1963):
-- 2 x McDonnell F-4 Phantom II or Vought F-8 Crusader III fighter squadrons (VF)
-- 2 x Douglas A-4 Skyhawk light attack squadrons (VA)
-- 1 x Grumman A-6 Intruder medium/all weather attack squadron (VA)
-- 1 x North American A-5 Vigilante heavy attack squadron (VAH)
-- 1 x North American RA-5C Vigilante reconnaissance/attack squadron (RVAH) detachment
-- 1 x Grumman E-1 Tracer carrier airborne early warning squadron (VAW) detachment

Typical Columbia Class Air Group Complement (1973):
-- 2 x Rockwell F-14 Vanguard all weather interceptor squadrons (VF)
-- 2 x McDonnell Douglas F-4 Super Phantom strike fighter squadrons (VFA)
-- 1 x Grumman A-6 Intruder medium/all weather attack squadron (VA)
-- 1 x Grumman EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare squadron (VAQ)
-- 1 x North American A-5 Vigilante heavy attack squadron (VAH)
-- 1 x North American RA-5 Vigilante reconnaissance/attack squadron (RVAH) detachment
-- 1 x Grumman E-2 Hawkeye carrier airborne early warning squadron (VAW) detachment
-- 1 x Boeing SH-51 Sea Cyclone anti-submarine rotodyne squadron (HS)

Typical Columbia Class Air Group Complement (1983):
-- 2 x McDonnell Douglas F-15 Seagull all weather fighter/interceptor squadrons (VF)
-- 2 x McDonnell Douglas F-4 Electric Super Phantom all weather strike fighter squadrons (VFA)
-- 1 x Grumman A-6 Intruder medium/all weather attack squadron (VA)
-- 1 x Grumman EA-6B Prowler electronic warfare squadron (VAQ)
-- 1 x Rockwell RF-14 Vanguard reconnaissance/attack squadron (RVAH) detachment
-- 1 x Grumman E-2 Hawkeye carrier airborne early warning squadron (VAW) detachment
-- 1 x Lockheed S-3 Viking anti-submarine squadron (VS)
-- 1 x Boeing SH-51 Sea Cyclone anti-submarine rotodyne squadron (HS)

Typical Columbia Class Air Group Complement (1993):
-- 2 x McDonnell Douglas F-15 Seagull all weather fighter/interceptor squadrons (VF)
-- 2 x McDonnell Douglas F-15 Strike Seagull or McDonnell F-4 Electric Super Phantom all weather strike fighter squadrons (VFA)
-- 1 x Grumman A-6 Intruder II medium/all weather attack squadron (VA)
-- 1 x Grumman EA-6B Prowler II electronic warfare squadron (VAQ)
-- 1 x Rockwell RF-14 Vanguard reconnaissance/attack squadron (RVAH) detachment
-- 1 x Grumman E-2 Hawkeye carrier airborne early warning squadron (VAW) detachment
-- 1 x Lockheed S-3 Viking anti-submarine squadron (VS)
-- 1 x Boeing SH-51 Sea Cyclone anti-submarine rotodyne squadron (HS)

Typical Columbia Class Air Group Complement (2003):
-- 2 x Northrop/McDonnell Douglas F-23 Banshee II all weather fighter squadrons (VF)
-- 2 x McDonnell Douglas F-15 Strike Seagull all weather strike fighter squadrons (VFA)
-- 1 x Grumman A-6 Intruder II medium/all weather attack squadron (VA)
-- 1 x Grumman EA-6B Prowler II electronic warfare squadron (VAQ)
-- 1 x Grumman E-2 Hawkeye carrier airborne early warning squadron (VAW) detachment
-- 1 x Lockheed S-3 Viking anti-submarine squadron (VS)
-- 1 x Boeing SH-51 Sea Cyclone anti-submarine rotodyne squadron (HS)

Columbia class aircraft carriers:
-- USS Columbia (CVN-66)
-- USS Lexington (CVN-67)
-- USS Ranger (CVN-68)
-- USS Saratoga (CVN-69)
-- USS Hornet (CVN-70)

Las Vegas Class Guided Missile Cruiser



The Las Vegas class was the second generation of nuclear powered guided missile cruisers to enter service with the United States Navy, following the USS Long Beach. Although using a hull design quite similar to the Long Beach, the major modifications and system changes implemented on Las Vegas and her sister ships led to the five ships being officially designated as the Las Vegas class. The class was also known as the "sunshine class", due to the large number of cities located in sunny locales, as well as for two of the cruisers being named after locations best known for their role in atomic testing.

Major changes from the Long Beach include new C2G nuclear reactors and a second generation solid state SCANFAR radar system. The ships were originally completed with Talos and Terrier surface to air missiles, ASROC anti-submarine rockets, two twin 12.75 inch torpedo launchers for the Mark 46 torpedo, and two 5"/38 guns. During their first nuclear refueling cycle in the 1970s and 1980s, all members of the class underwent significant modernization. An AEGIS radar system replaced SCANFAR, the Standard missile replaced the Talos and Terrier, and 8"/55 Mark 81 guns replaced the 5"/38 guns. The ships gained new capabilities through the addition of Harpoon anti-ship missiles and the Tomahawk cruise missile.

The Las Vegas class served in the United States Navy for over fifty years, proving the the viability and utility of nuclear propulsion for battle group escorts. The ships also provided good service in the Second Korean War and the Middle Eastern crises, with the nuclear navy resulting in a lowered logistical burden for Allied forces, as well as a reduction in the impact of energy shortages on military operations.

Las Vegas class cruisers:
-- USS Las Vegas (CGN-10)
-- USS Chattanooga (CGN-11)
-- USS Fairbanks (CGN-12)
-- USS Alamogordo (CGN-13)
-- USS Hilo (CGN-14)

So no Nimitz with 2 x A4W?

Also it appears that D2G can be modified into D2W and go from 30,000shp to 35,000shp.

Riain said:

So no Nimitz with 2 x A4W?

Also it appears that D2G can be modified into D2W and go from 30,000shp to 35,000shp.

Click to expand...

The Samar class is the Nimitz analogue for that timeline, although less of them are produced. Columbia class production lasts throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the first Samar isn't laid down until the late 1970s or early 1980s, entering service in the mid-1980s. The new Midway class is the Gerald R. Ford class analogue for that timeline.

Also, there isn't an energy crisis until the 1980s and 1990s in that timeline, so ironically there is actually less energy security because there is far more demand for energy and far lower efficiency. While painful, the energy crisis of the 1970s led to lower growth in energy demand and an emphasis on efficiency. Naval nuclear power thus has energy security and more stable costs working in its favor in the later parts of the timeline.

Boeing SH-51 Sea Cyclone



A naval variant of the Boeing Cyclone, itself a license produced version of the Fairey Rotodyne. Rotodynes have served in the United States Navy and other fleets since the early 1960s, proving popular due to their high speed, large payload capacity, and larger degree of safety relative to helicopters.

Grumman A-6 Intruder II and EA-6B Prowler II



With the Navy facing tight budgets in the 1980s, Grumman's unsolicited proposal for an A-6/EA-6B modernization program was given serious consideration and eventually adopted. Aircraft underwent an overhaul and life extension program, and the old Pratt & Whitney J52 turbojets were replaced with non-afterburning variants of the F401 turbofan used on the Seagull, significantly improving power and economy. Aircraft also gained new avionics, allowing the use of a wider array of weapons, as well as air to air missiles.

McDonnell Douglas F-15 Seagull and Strike Seagull



With combat experience in Korea showing the need for maneuverability, the Navy realized the Vanguard was unsuitable as a fighter/interceptor aircraft. With budgets tight in the aftermath of the conflict, the Navy was forced to make due with a navalized fighter/interceptor variant of the USAF F-15 Eagle, featuring the AN/AWG-9 and Phoenix missile system. Although initially it was planned to officially name this variant the Sea Eagle, the name was often shortened to Seagull, and the name stuck. Ironically, the Navy would take the lead on developing the strike model, which entered USN service as the Strike Seagull, and USAF service as the Strike Eagle.

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Super Phantom and Electric Super Phantom



With the Phantom having a disappointing performance over Korea, the USN embarked on a program to improve both training and equipment. The training program became known as Top Gun, and the new equipment included the Super Phantom. Based around the British Spey engined variants, the Super Phantom included further changes to improve cockpit ergonomics, avionics, maintainability, and other aspects. While the Super Phantom was ultimately unable to keep up with modern fighter aircraft in maneuverability, it's heavy payload capacity kept the design in Navy service through the 1990s and several modification programs. The mid to late 1970s saw the addition of ventral fuel tanks to increase fuel capacity and range, and the 1980s saw the Electric Super Phantom program, which replaced analogue controls and legacy avionics with new digital controls and digital avionics, further improving aircraft performance and reliability. The Electric Super Phantom program also equipped aircraft with advanced targeting equipment, augmenting their reorientation towards the strike role.

North American A-5 and RA-5C Vigilante



The Vigilante was essentially a navalized Mach 2 nuclear attack variant of the North American F-108 Rapier interceptor. When the Navy decided to remove aircraft carriers from SIOP to focus on the Polaris missile deterrent, the Vigilante was left without a role. However, converted aircraft served well for many years as reconnaissance aircraft. Ironically, they were themselves replaced by converted Vanguard interceptors, after that aircraft (itself a Vigilante development) was also left without a role.

Northrop/McDonnell Douglas F-23 Banshee II



While the Navy faced pressure to adopt a navalized variant of the USAF F-22 to replace the Seagull, it was successful in arguing for a dedicated naval aircraft. The result was the Banshee II. While the F-22 is rumored to be more maneuverable, the Banshee II is thought to be faster and more stealthy. A strike variant has been proposed, although it is unlikely to enter service any time soon due to the fairly recent acquisition of Strike Eagle and Strike Seagull aircraft by the USAF and USN, respectively.

Rockwell F-14 and RF-14 Vanguard



The Vanguard was an interceptor development of the earlier North American Vigilante. Mounting the powerful AN/AWG-9 and Phoenix missile system, the Vanguard was an excellent interceptor, but proved unable to keep up with developments in aircraft technology. The Vanguard was replaced in the interceptor role by the Seagull, and some aircraft were converted into reconnaissance aircraft, replacing the Vigilante.

Vought F-8 Crusader III



The Vought F-8 Crusader III was selected for service on smaller aircraft carriers unable to operate the larger McDonnell F-4 Phantom. It proved popular in international service due to its ability to operate from smaller aircraft carriers commonly used by non-great power navies.

I've never given this topic much thought before, but it makes for interesting reading. Given the way things panned out IOTL I'd be wary about saddling the USN with too many nuclear powered warships, or ships with less than the latest reactor designs.

I'd have the USS America as the second Enterprise class ship and the JFK as a transitional class, with the 4 x A3W reactors and the Nimitz constructed as per OTL with her mature A4W reactors.

I'd also have at least one more Truxtun class built to provide America with her pair of nuke escorts, and the California's started sooner to provide the JFK with its pair of nuke escorts.

Hathaway Class Guided Missile Destroyer



While the advantages of nuclear power for submarines, aircraft carriers, and large battle group escorts were widely accepted following the success of Nautilus, Enterprise, and Long Beach, naval experts continued to debate its utility on smaller warships. As initial trials of the nuclear battle group concept were conducted throughout the 1960s, the limited endurance of smaller escorts was discovered to be a potential issue. Having some nuclear powered ships didn't reduce the frequently of refueling, simply the amount of fuel required during refueling operations. If all ships that made up a carrier battle group were nuclear powered, significant improvements in operations and logistics could be realized.

It was in this environment that the Hathaway class of experimental nuclear powered destroyers was ordered for the United States Navy. The ships were highly advanced, being the first to feature the new dual role Standard missile system and the first American warships to feature a 3D radar system. While proving the viability of the nuclear escort concept and the capabilities of smaller ships, the Navy realized that hull costs were a fraction of the cost of a nuclear powered guided missile warship. All Navy destroyers and cruisers since have been built to a displacement of around 10,000 tons. With a displacement of only 6,000 tons, the Hathaway class remain the smallest nuclear powered warships ever built. The class spent most of its life in various experimental roles, helping to develop AEGIS and other new systems.

Experimental Nuclear Carrier Battle Group:
-- 1 x CVN (USS Enterprise)
-- 1 x CGN (USS Long Beach)
-- 2 x DLGN (USS Bainbridge, USS Truxton)
-- 4 x DDGN (USS Hathaway, USS Copeland, USS Kintberger, USS Hayes)

Hathaway class destroyers:
-- USS Hathaway (DDGN-25)
-- USS Copeland (DDGN-26)
-- USS Kintberger (DDGN-27)
-- USS Hayes (DDGN-28)

Riain said:

I've never given this topic much thought before, but it makes for interesting reading. Given the way things panned out IOTL I'd be wary about saddling the USN with too many nuclear powered warships, or ships with less than the latest reactor designs.

I'd have the USS America as the second Enterprise class ship and the JFK as a transitional class, with the 4 x A3W reactors and the Nimitz constructed as per OTL with her mature A4W reactors.

I'd also have at least one more Truxtun class built to provide America with her pair of nuke escorts, and the California's started sooner to provide the JFK with its pair of nuke escorts.

Click to expand...

This is somewhat based on my Need for Speed timeline, so Nixon is president from 1955 to 1965 (he starts in 1955 because Eisenhower resigns following his heart attack). Ironically, there could be a USS Richard M. Nixon, should Nixon die in office from his heart condition.

As for the nuclear navy itself, there are going to still be conventional ships, because nuclear power is expensive and primarily valued for the increased endurance it provides. Nuclear power is useful for shortening the legs of ships in the Pacific, because it's far from reliable/friendly sources of petroleum. Forces based in the Americas don't really have to worry about that, and even Europe isn't as problematic because it gets energy from the Middle East through the Mediterranean. Europe can provide reliable energy, although some nuclear powered ships might be useful there for energy security reasons that would be seen in the event of a supply disruption such as an embargo, Suez Canal closure, Arab-Israeli War, regional conflict, or other form of instability.

I'm thinking something like the Doolittle Raid.

Maybe WW3 breaks out in the late 1940s , and the Soviet Union takes Europe.

Could a bomber with a nuke fly of a aircraft carrier to bomb Russian ports? This could be the earliest nuked armed navy we get.

Peter Parker said:

I'm thinking something like the Doolittle Raid.

Maybe WW3 breaks out in the late 1940s , and the Soviet Union takes Europe.

Could a bomber with a nuke fly of a aircraft carrier to bomb Russian ports? This could be the earliest nuked armed navy we get.

Click to expand...

USS United States would work well for having Navy aircraft play a major role in SIOP, but this is more about nuclear propulsion. Having carriers in SIOP is an interesting topic as well though.

Interesting. Subscribed.

Something I've long wondered about, but which I lack the expertise to evaluate, is whether wider use of naval nuclear propulsion could gain economies of scale that would bring the cost closer to conventional propulsion.

Asnys said:

Interesting. Subscribed.

Something I've long wondered about, but which I lack the expertise to evaluate, is whether wider use of naval nuclear propulsion could gain economies of scale that would bring the cost closer to conventional propulsion.

Click to expand...

Apparently not, although in the world of AH the economics can be changed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cgn-42.htm This article spells out the AGEIS Virginia version which was cancelled. The key is that if you are going to build a nuclear powered escort then it must be fitted with the latest gear, and if it is then it becomes so expensive that it skews the rest of the force. The USN could at best have 20 AGEIS Virginias between 1980 and 1995, as opposed to 27 Ticos of OTL.

Riain said:

Apparently not, although in the world of AH the economics can be changed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cgn-42.htm This article spells out the AGEIS Virginia version which was cancelled. The key is that if you are going to build a nuclear powered escort then it must be fitted with the latest gear, and if it is then it becomes so expensive that it skews the rest of the force. The USN could at best have 20 AGEIS Virginias between 1980 and 1995, as opposed to 27 Ticos of OTL.

Click to expand...

20 ships wouldn't be enough to get that kind of economies of scale anyway; there'd already been what, a hundred or so?, propulsion reactors for subs and carriers by then.

Asnys said:

20 ships wouldn't be enough to get that kind of economies of scale anyway; there'd already been what, a hundred or so?, propulsion reactors for subs and carriers by then.

Click to expand...

I think submarines are looked at differently since a nuclear submarine is vastly more capable than a diesel-electric sub, rather than just longer ranged. A nuke surface ship has little advantage over a conventional ship apart from not needing to refuel regularly, and this comes at the cost of an extra 40-50 crew members.

I'm sorry to sound like a killjoy, I like the idea of more nuke powered ships, but not at the cost of killing the rest of the USN.

Asnys said:

Interesting. Subscribed.

Something I've long wondered about, but which I lack the expertise to evaluate, is whether wider use of naval nuclear propulsion could gain economies of scale that would bring the cost closer to conventional propulsion.

Click to expand...

I think nuclear submarine reactors would actually be an excellent place to look at economies of scale in the nuclear industry. Most nuclear power plants are essentially one-offs, even when adding units to an existing plant. In contrast, nuclear submarines and their reactors are built in a series, so there should be little to no changes between them.

Budgeting could probably also factor into things. Most of the cost of a nuclear powered ship is up front, as it simply costs more to build a nuclear powered ship. There are also costs associated with refueling and the nuclear decommissioning process. However, these costs are fairly stable relative to something like the cost of petroleum to power a conventional ship. If the cost of a nuclear ship and a conventional ship were given in terms of life cycle costs. The annual operating costs in terms of cash flow (with refueling averaged in) could also be compared. The way nuclear ships are budgeted isn't exactly fair. A nuclear refueling cycle is expensive, but it's a predictable expense that can be budgeted for. I imagine purchasing a decade's worth of fuel for a conventional ship would be quite expensive too.

That's the direct economics of petroleum vs. nuclear though. There would be further economic savings in other areas, such as on resupply and port visit costs for refueling purposes. There are also intangible benefits on operations and logistics, because nuclear power isn't an issue of petroleum vs. nuclear costs, but what those ships can do. A nuclear ship has more endurance and other differences relative to a conventionally powered ship. They help the ship to do its job better, but they are something of an intangible benefit.

Riain said:

Apparently not, although in the world of AH the economics can be changed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cgn-42.htm This article spells out the AGEIS Virginia version which was cancelled. The key is that if you are going to build a nuclear powered escort then it must be fitted with the latest gear, and if it is then it becomes so expensive that it skews the rest of the force. The USN could at best have 20 AGEIS Virginias between 1980 and 1995, as opposed to 27 Ticos of OTL.

Click to expand...

I remember seeing something the Navy did a few years ago on conventional vs. nuclear power for a cruiser, examining them from an economic perspective. I'll have to see if I can find it again, but it was interesting.

Also, I'm not sure if it would be a case of purchasing only conventional or only nuclear powered ships for the Navy, at least in an environment where nuclear isn't obviously less expensive over the long term compared to petroleum. The economic situation in this timeline will be favorable to nuclear power due to the energy crisis occurring almost a decade later than our timeline, but trying to predict long term energy trends is complex. For example, I doubt anyone twenty years ago would have predicted that energy prices would be where they are today (certainly higher though, the 1990s were anonymously low by modern standards), or that the Americas, especially North America, would be experiencing a secondary peak in petroleum production and a major surge in natural gas production.

In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s when the timeline takes place, those factors will be even less certain, because there were still major energy discoveries to be made. Most major energy changes now are due to technological advances or economic changes that make previously discovered and economically unproductive/marginal resources more competitive.

Riain said:

I think submarines are looked at differently since a nuclear submarine is vastly more capable than a diesel-electric sub, rather than just longer ranged. A nuke surface ship has little advantage over a conventional ship apart from not needing to refuel regularly, and this comes at the cost of an extra 40-50 crew members.

I'm sorry to sound like a killjoy, I like the idea of more nuke powered ships, but not at the cost of killing the rest of the USN.

Click to expand...

Nuclear power has some newly developed roles that could be useful, such as the ability to convert seawater into hydrocarbons for naval aviation (see here) and also providing a large electrical capacity that could be useful for next generation weapon systems requiring large amounts of electricity, such as railguns and energy weapons.