Going Fission: America's Nuclear Navy

[Delta Force]

I've added some pictures for illustrative purposes. The aircraft might have USAF colors and insignia, just assume they are evaluation aircraft unless I say they have them in-universe or there's a reason to assume the USAF has them.

Also, the Hathaway class uses the Bainbridge class as an illustration because I couldn't find a good USN ship or drawing as an example, and also because Bainbridge was nuclear powered and had the hull number 25, so it worked well as an illustration.

 

[Usili]

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.

I read a briefing by the CBO post Gulf War I over nuclear v. conventional carriers. For the most part, it mentioned no real differences in terms of economics of scale, with a slightly improved capacity for armaments and fuel for aircraft between the Kitty Hawks and Nimitz class, but it was negligible in a 'long scale' for sorties.

(I think that was the general summary of it)

 

[Mike D]

I believe nuclear ships are also more expensive to crew - the requirement for nuclear trained technical staff (who can make a lot more money in civvie street), the increased vetting required for nuclear staff compared to a fairly standard mechanic on a conventional ship, increased manpower requirements for manning the reactors, increased security requirements etc.

 

[Panica]

Bringing cost dawn.

Bringing cost dawn:
If you go nuclear look at Molten slat reactors you could cut reactor costs by 1/2 or 2/3 if mass produced. They are smaller with same output, safer and hcnece chaeper.

It would fit in to story right after nuclear aircraft reactor was shut dawn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

reactor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

 

[Delta Force]

I read a briefing by the CBO post Gulf War I over nuclear v. conventional carriers. For the most part, it mentioned no real differences in terms of economics of scale, with a slightly improved capacity for armaments and fuel for aircraft between the Kitty Hawks and Nimitz class, but it was negligible in a 'long scale' for sorties.

(I think that was the general summary of it)

There are some interesting options for naval nuclear propulsion in the next few years that could give nuclear propulsion some real advantages over conventional propulsion in naval use. Synthetic fuel for naval aviation and the use of simple steel rods for railguns would really change naval logistics, especially if implemented alongside naval nuclear power. There's lots of detail on that in my earlier post on the last page.

I believe nuclear ships are also more expensive to crew - the requirement for nuclear trained technical staff (who can make a lot more money in civvie street), the increased vetting required for nuclear staff compared to a fairly standard mechanic on a conventional ship, increased manpower requirements for manning the reactors, increased security requirements etc.

I'm not sure if the background checks pose a major issue. There were a lot of people in sensitive positions during the Cold War, and a nuclear navy adds a few thousand more in various crew and other roles.

Finding people to serve as crew is a larger issue though. I've read that the Navy has a difficult time retaining trained nuclear propulsion officers due to competition from the private sector, with many nuclear propulsion ratings being fairly young. In a timeline with more widespread nuclear power and thus even more competition for nuclear ratings it seems that interesting incentives would have to be devised to find and retain qualified personnel.

Bringing cost dawn:
If you go nuclear look at Molten slat reactors you could cut reactor costs by 1/2 or 2/3 if mass produced. They are smaller with same output, safer and hcnece chaeper.

It would fit in to story right after nuclear aircraft reactor was shut dawn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-powered_aircraft

reactor:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

That could be an option to look into. However, molten salt reactors are different from the usual reactor designs used in naval nuclear propulsion and elsewhere, which might be problematic given the conservative nature of both navies and the nuclear industry. Perhaps it's something that might be doable in the 1970s and 1980s.

 

[sharlin]

Really good stuff Delta and if I may...

In the Soviet Union the navy's repeated urgings for a modern, multi-role fleet finally gained traction with the proliferation of nuclear powered surface vessels. Despite massive interservice rivalries and the difficulties that alone presented authorisation for nuclear powered surface vessels as well as the development of aircraft carriers was authorised.

Project 917 - Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya class cruiser.

The Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya class was an impressive looking vessel when they entered service in 1967. At over 9500 tonnes one of the largest warships made by the Soviet Union and they were 197 meters long. Armed with at the time the best weapons availible to the Soviet Navy they each sported two twin SA-N-2 'Ganef' launchers, two twin SA-N-3 'Goblet' launchers and two twin SA-N-4 'Gecko' launchers as their missile armament, dedicated totally to air defence. Two 57mm guns and four 30mm guns as well as two tripple torpedo tubes and two RBU-100 launchers rounded off the armament and whilst they didn't have a hangar they could land a KA-25 on a platform at the extreme stern. Two reactors drove the ships at 32 knots.

They gave the Soviet Navy valuable experience with nuclear warships but the ships themselves were not popular with their crews who called them 'the neon warships' claiming their hulls glowed in the dark.

Indeed both ships suffered constant reactor 'hiccups' the worst of which was a serious fire in the engine room of the Aurora which claimed the lives of 48 men and lead to the ship being scuttled off Novaya Zemlya in 1983 and the Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya was decomissioned in 1985 and scrapped by 1987.

They were followed by the Project 1178 Kursk Class cruisers, for all intense and purposes they were stretched Kresta class hulls with a pair of modified submarine reactors in them powering them to a maximum speed of 35 kts.
Armament was two twin SA-N-3 and two twin SA-N-4 launchers along with the first soviet VLS system for SS-N-14s and four SS-N-9's for anti-shipping work. The usual compliment of 76mm and 30mm guns along with 6 torpedo tubes and four RBU launchers finished their armament although this was slightly altered in 1982 after watching the RN's experience in the Falklands. The Soviets fitted four quadruple SA-N-5 launchers to the ships (a navalised SA-7) for point defence as well as mounting points for machine guns.

This class started to be decomissioned from 1994 onwards with the arrival of the new Atlant Class cruisers. The decommissioning was also aided by ongoing problems with the Kursk classes reactors and lead to the early retirement of the class which were meant to serve until at least 2000.

The difficulties of producing their first 'real' carrier outside of the planned Helicopter carriers meant that the cruisers were designed and laid down first, but eventually the Soviets settled on a 50,000 tonne design, 280x60 meters with a capacity for 38 aircraft.

The two strong Brezhnevclass entered service in 1969 and were deemed a success in Soviet and Western eyes. Heavily armed for carriers they were equipped with four dual mounts for 57mm guns as well as four AK-630 CIWS and two RBU-1000's. Their aircraft compliment was initially planned to be a navalised and slightly stretched MiG-21 with SU-22's performing the strike and interdiction role. This was then altered to the MiG-23/27 as the carrier was delayed again and again due to design and manufacturing problems. The standard KA-25 performed the SAR/ASW role.

In 1978 the two Brezhnev class ships were joined by the four smaller, cheaper and conventially powered Kiev class vessels. These smaller ships had been originally designed to operate helicopters and the new VSTOL fighter from Yak but the success of the Brezhnev's saw that plan altered with them becoming full fledged carriers all be it ones with a small airgroup (20 MiG-29's and 8 KA-27/40 helicopters). The Kiev Class were also exceptionally well armed fitted with six octuple SA-N-9 launchers as well as six AK-630 CIWS. Ten VLS lauchers for first SS-N-9 and later the SS-N-21 Cruise missile were also fitted.


From 1981 - 1987 the KremlinClass of super carrier started to also enter service and these would eventually supplant the Brezhnev class vessels and were a clear evolution of them. At 72000 tonnes and 310 meters long the class was the largest to ever commission into the Soviet navy. Despite their size their airgroups were considered small but all four carriers were heavily armed for self defence. They all had 6 SA-N-9 launchers as well as 2 octuple SA-N-6 launchers buried under the flight deck. Eight AK-630's and four quadruple SA-N-5's completed their armament whilst an airgroup of 48 SU-33s, 4 Yak 44's and 19 KA-27s formed the airgroup. With the Brezhnev becoming more unreliable due to reactor issues the four strong Kremlin's formed the main balance of Soviet naval strength and were often seen in company with the huge Kirov class battlecruisers as well as destroyers and other cruisers in an imitation of a USN CBG's.

Two of the Class the Kremlin and Riga paid off in 2011 and 2016 respectively but the Soviets were already working on the next class the smaller Admiral Kuznetsov class.

 

[bsmart]

The F-15 is NOT going to be modified for carrier use. The changes required for the abuse a carrier aircraft takes in landing and takeoff would increase the weight too much. The F-14 was already in the pipeline since the F-111B was a failure. The F-14 is very good and in the hands of a good pilot is more than capable as a dogfighter.

I also don't see the A-5 being reworked as an interceptor. With its combination of size, configuration and the engines there just isn't enough flexibility in its design. It was very good as a SIOP penetrator and as a highspeed recon aircraft but that is pretty much the limit of the airframe.

Also the A-7 was a great followon to the A-4 as a 'light attack' aircraft. The A-6 filled the Heavy/all weather attack roll well (as well as the electronic and tanker role) The proposed 'Super Phantom ' was a much more expensive and dated design for the light attack role. If anything it would replace the A-6 as a heavy/all weather role but the A-6t was a newer more capable design.

 

[Delta Force]

In the Soviet Union the navy's repeated urgings for a modern, multi-role fleet finally gained traction with the proliferation of nuclear powered surface vessels. Despite massive interservice rivalries and the difficulties that alone presented authorisation for nuclear powered surface vessels as well as the development of aircraft carriers was authorised.

The Soviets didn't have as many overseas bases for their fleets to operate from, so the logistical advantages of nuclear power would be very attractive to them. There's also the second mover advantage, as the Soviets could let the United States do the fundamental research before jumping in and putting some of those lessons to work in their own designs.

Perhaps the Kara class cruisers would be built with modified submarine reactors (something you suggested) to trial the technology in a warship (the icebreaker Lenin was the earliest Soviet nuclear powered ship), trialing technologies for future use on the Kirov class. As for carrier aviation, I think the Soviets would probably go with something similar to a nuclear powered Kiev class, perhaps building something similar to the INS Vikramaditya as a prototype of a more conventionally designed carrier.

I'm not sure about the MiG-21 and Su-22 on an aircraft carrier, as they weren't exactly renowned for ground handling.

 

[Delta Force]

The F-15 is NOT going to be modified for carrier use. The changes required for the abuse a carrier aircraft takes in landing and takeoff would increase the weight too much. The F-14 was already in the pipeline since the F-111B was a failure. The F-14 is very good and in the hands of a good pilot is more than capable as a dogfighter.

There isn't an F-111B in this timeline, as the F-111 remains a TAC project to augment/replace the F-105. Eventually a stretched F-111 is adopted by SAC as a replacement for the medium bombers.

I also don't see the A-5 being reworked as an interceptor. With its combination of size, configuration and the engines there just isn't enough flexibility in its design. It was very good as a SIOP penetrator and as a highspeed recon aircraft but that is pretty much the limit of the airframe.

Rockwell proposed the NR-349 Retaliator for an ADC interceptor program in the late 1960s/early 1970s, so the potential was there. The Vigilante of this timeline is a bit different too, as it has a conventional bay instead of the linear bomb bay that caused so many issues for the design.

Also the A-7 was a great followon to the A-4 as a 'light attack' aircraft. The A-6 filled the Heavy/all weather attack roll well (as well as the electronic and tanker role) The proposed 'Super Phantom ' was a much more expensive and dated design for the light attack role. If anything it would replace the A-6 as a heavy/all weather role but the A-6t was a newer more capable design.

The Crusader and Corsair designs serve on the smaller USN and foreign aircraft carriers in this timeline. The Super Phantom is selected for the larger aircraft carriers due to its strike fighter capabilities, which aren't found on any other aircraft at the time. There are good interceptors and good strike aircraft, but the Super Phantom combines both in one package. I should point out that it's quite heavily modified even compared to the Spey Phantoms, making it akin to the difference between the Hornet and Super Hornet. In other words, it looks similar and does similar things, but there is quite a bit of difference, mostly related to making the aircraft easier to fly and maintain. The Phantom wasn't exactly user friendly in terms of cockpit ergonomics or access to systems. Cannon controls were located under the seat, a turbine next to the pilot's right leg could fail with catastrophic consequences, and engines could take a day to replace (only an hour or two for more modern designs).

 

[Panica]

That could be an option to look into. However, molten salt reactors are different from the usual reactor designs used in naval nuclear propulsion and elsewhere, which might be problematic given the conservative nature of both navies and the nuclear industry. Perhaps it's something that might be doable in the 1970s and 1980s.

Typical technological lock in.
In 1970s MSR reactor were in development but Nixon shut it dawn. - Due to politics. maybe NAvy could have picked up pieces.
Another POD could have been taht navy picked them up in 1950s.

 

[Delta Force]

Typical technological lock in.
In 1970s MSR reactor were in development but Nixon shut it dawn. - Due to politics. maybe NAvy could have picked up pieces.
Another POD could have been taht navy picked them up in 1950s.

Molten salt reactors have some interesting advantages over conventional reactor technology for naval propulsion uses. However, corrosion and brittleness seem to be an issue, and the technology also suffers from a relative lack of research.

I wonder why navies decided to investigate liquid metal cooled reactors (especially sodium and lead cooled designs) instead of molten salt?

 

[asnys]

Molten salt reactors have some interesting advantages over conventional reactor technology for naval propulsion uses. However, corrosion and brittleness seem to be an issue, and the technology also suffers from a relative lack of research.

I wonder why navies decided to investigate liquid metal cooled reactors (especially sodium and lead cooled designs) instead of molten salt?

At least in the US, I think it was because liquid-metal-cooled technology was better understood and closer to operational deployment at the time the Navy was investigating it. Several sodium-cooled reactors had already been built and operated, most famously EBR-1, and there was a good knowledge base already available.

 

[Delta Force]

At least in the US, I think it was because liquid-metal-cooled technology was better understood and closer to operational deployment at the time the Navy was investigating it. Several sodium-cooled reactors had already been built and operated, most famously EBR-1, and there was a good knowledge base already available.

I hadn't considered alternative nuclear reactors much when starting, but some of the alternatives are quite interesting. I had to scan Wikipedia for the sodium and molten salt designs.

Lead cooled reactors seem to be rather safe due to properties inherent with using lead as a coolant. For example, the coolant itself doubles as shielding, the lead needs heat to stay liquid and keep flowing (power loss thus shutting the reactor down), lead will solidify to plug any leaks in the coolant loops, and the reactor runs at low pressures. It also seems like it would be simple to maintain, since the entire reactor module can be removed for replacement instead of being refueled, reducing infrastructure requirements. Also, at least in a naval propulsion context lead reactors are lighter than pressurized water designs.

Molten salt reactors are interesting as well, because they have some safety improvements over pressurized water designs. They also respond quickly to load changes and are easy to turn on and off (although I'm not sure how useful that is). However, they can cause some metals to become corroded or brittle, and required facilities to "manage core mixture and remove fission products". The fact that they produce tritium and can be used to produce weapons grade materials might also be an issue, although it might be less of a controversy since they are reactors for military purposes anyways.

 

[asnys]

Lead cooled reactors seem to be rather safe due to properties inherent with using lead as a coolant. For example, the coolant itself doubles as shielding, the lead needs heat to stay liquid and keep flowing (power loss thus shutting the reactor down), lead will solidify to plug any leaks in the coolant loops, and the reactor runs at low pressures. It also seems like it would be simple to maintain, since the entire reactor module can be removed for replacement instead of being refueled, reducing infrastructure requirements. Also, at least in a naval propulsion context lead reactors are lighter than pressurized water designs.

The few lead-cooled reactors built IOTL don't seem to have been very reliable, but I'm not sure if that's an inherent property of the coolant, or just an issue with that particular design. They do have a few other issues worth mentioning, though: lead's toxic, which imposes significant handling difficulties. And the bismuth becomes neutron-activated to form radiopolonium, which is very nasty, meaning your primary coolant lines need shielding. (They do in sodium-cooled reactors as well, but it's not as big an issue.)

Molten salt reactors are interesting as well, because they have some safety improvements over pressurized water designs. They also respond quickly to load changes and are easy to turn on and off (although I'm not sure how useful that is). However, they can cause some metals to become corroded or brittle, and required facilities to "manage core mixture and remove fission products". The fact that they produce tritium and can be used to produce weapons grade materials might also be an issue, although it might be less of a controversy since they are reactors for military purposes anyways.

At least in principle, it should be possible to make the core mixture management no worse then a mid-service refueling - and, unlike a PWR, you can just pump the fuel out and back in. And since these wouldn't be breeders, the issue of making weapons material shouldn't arise.

 

[Riain]

There has been a few USN ships hit and badly damaged, belknap, stark and cole for starters. With nuclear surface being more common ittl what would be the fallout from a nuke ship being badly damaged by accident or action?

 

[Delta Force]

The few lead-cooled reactors built IOTL don't seem to have been very reliable, but I'm not sure if that's an inherent property of the coolant, or just an issue with that particular design. They do have a few other issues worth mentioning, though: lead's toxic, which imposes significant handling difficulties. And the bismuth becomes neutron-activated to form radiopolonium, which is very nasty, meaning your primary coolant lines need shielding. (They do in sodium-cooled reactors as well, but it's not as big an issue.)

It might have been with the design/role. The Soviets used lead reactors on the Alfa class submarines, which were 41 knot interceptors designed to dash across the Atlantic in the event of war.

Toxic lead might not be that large of an issue, since nuclear power already involves radioactive substances. The polonium is a much bigger issue, that stuff is very nasty indeed.

 

[Delta Force]

There has been a few USN ships hit and badly damaged, belknap, stark and cole for starters. With nuclear surface being more common ittl what would be the fallout from a nuke ship being badly damaged by accident or action?

Interesting you should mention that, as I stumbled across this image of Belknap last night while doing research. Somehow the USS John F. Kennedy ran into it, causing a major fire that destroyed much of the superstructure.

If it had been USS Truxton instead, it seems likely there would have been an incident with the reactor. The last thing you want to have at sea is a fire or a collision, which are quite close to the worst things that can happen at a nuclear power facility (replacing collision with seismic damage).

I've never actually seen any information regarding reactor incidents with ships, but that's certainly an interesting issue. I imagine it would be similar to nuclear incidents on land, although fortunately a nuclear powered ship is likely to experience problems at sea, far away from population centers. That wouldn't help for something like the USS Cole incident though.

 

[asnys]

Remember, we have lost nuclear-powered ships at sea, more then one. They were all subs as far as I know, but it's happened. A few things to remember: first, these reactors are a lot smaller then your average power reactor, and smaller reactor means proportionately less toxic shit to get out. Second, as long as the vessel isn't breached in the initial event, whatever it is, it's unlikely things will get too out of hand. The reactor should scram automatically, and you've got a nice big heat sink under you to absorb the decay heat. So, unless your incident discombobulates the reactor directly, it's unlikely to actually breach; instead it will sink down to the ocean depths, there to slowly corrode over the decades. Which, while not a good thing, isn't that big a deal compared to all the other shit we've dumped in the oceans over the centuries: the rate of release will be slow, most of the radio-toxins will die out before they reach humans, and there's a big, big volume to dilute them. I'm not saying we should make a habit of dumping reactors out there, mind, but it's not going to be a water-borne Chernobyl, or even a Fukushima.

 

[Riain]

HMAS Melbourne cut two destroyers in half in accidents, if one of those was nuclear it would have made an awful mess.

 

[Delta Force]

The Beginning or the End?

While the Manhattan Project had primarily focused on atomic energy's potential as a weapon, scientists had been thinking of its potential applications in other roles. Faced with reduced funding in the aftermath of World War II, the nuclear laboratories began to focus on some of these applications, including Clinton Laboratories. While the facility's X-10 Graphite Reactor had helped supply plutonium for the atomic program, there was reduced demand for plutonium in the post-war environment. The reactor was turned over to peaceful uses, such as basic science research and the creation of the world's first medical isotopes in August 1946. However, competition for funding was becoming fierce. The stakes became even higher when in 1947 the General Advisory Board of the Atomic Energy Commission recommended concentrating research at only a few laboratories. Argonne National Laboratory, Clinton's main rival and developer of the Chicago Pile, was to take over the development of nuclear reactor technologies. The newly created Brookhaven National Laboratory was to consolidate other peaceful nuclear energy programs. Clinton had no role assigned under the preliminary plan. It would have to create its own - a daunting challenge that left the Oak Ridge without a director for several months following the departure of Eugene Wigner.

It was with this grim backdrop that the young new Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratories (the newly renamed Clinton Laboratories) met with an ambitious United States Navy captain in March 1948. It was the first of many meetings that Alvin M. Weinberg and Hyman G. Rickover would have, unbeknownst to the two at the time.