Delta Force
Banned
That's a historical update, but once we get into the 1950s things will start to become more divergent. I never did determine a specific PoD for The Need for Speed setting, just that it's sometime in the early to mid-1950s.
Going Fission: America's Nuclear Navy
- Thread starter Delta Force
- Start date
Maybe they play a role in fast Reforger convoys that would be independent of fuel supplies?
23 Year Navy Nuke Sub Vet. The costs of nuclear power are enormous. Parts cost much more and can't be bought off the shelf like gas turbine parts can. Refits and overhauls are much more expensive. You would have to have a large expansion of the nuclear training pipeline. That would mean expanding Nuclear Power School, adding more land based training reactors and more nukes to man them. During the build up to the 600 ship Navy, the nuclear power training pipeline could not keep up. There were never enough trained nukes in the fleet. Nukes are very expensive, both officer and enlisted. Navy reactors also have a crap ton of fuel in them. They are very hard to make and are very expensive. Just about every refueling overhaul I have ever heard of was over time and way over budget. There are also basing restrictions (Japan is not very fond of nukes) and port visit restrictions. Gas turbines are also easier (less people and not as much training) to man and get parts for. Each sub has about 40 nukes and each carrier about 500 (estimate, never on a carrier). Plus, manpower is usually your greatest expense. I would be very interested to see a CBA of nukes vs gas turbine on DD's and CG's. IMHO gas turbine would win.
Riain
Banned
It's worth the cost if there is a serious tactical advantage, in nuke subs it's blindingly obvious, in carriers its there but after a bit of a stumble at the start but with regular escort ships the tactical advantage just isn't worth the cost.
At least some of those costs are due to a lack of critical mass (excuse the pun) in the nuclear fleet. A sufficiently large number of nuclear ships, built up to gradually, would allow the training and industrial base to accomodate them much more easily. The nature of the reactor and steam plant means you'll always have higher costs, but they needn't be as crippling as OTL.
And, dare I say it, sacking Rickover much earlier would work wonders for efficiency. The man had some good ideas, but stifled progress with his demands for perfection and insistence on doing things his way or not at all.
Delta Force
Banned
Interesting PoD.
It should get even more interesting technically and politically as things go on.
Perhaps, but one PoD later on is no 1970s energy crisis. Petroleum thus remains cheaper going into the 1980s. Of course, there are still supply constraints on petroleum production and other reasons why it isn't suitable for use in the electricity sector, and the military has interest in some of the operational and logistical improvements nuclear power brings. Commercial maritime nuclear propulsion might be something for the 1980s and onwards.
There could be a role for that, but a REFORGER convoy is about the last place you would expect to find a fuel shortage. In fact, some of the largest ships ever built were 1970s oil tankers, and those might be unusable in a REFORGER operation due to their specific route requirements. A combination of lower cost and easier construction (especially of frigate type ships) keeps conventional ships in service for military and commercial roles, and the majority of smaller military ships are conventionally powered.
This timeline will have more widespread nuclear power, so there will be a larger pool of people and industry in the nuclear field. The Navy might have even more problems retaining nuclear ratings relative to now, but they probably won't have as difficult a time finding volunteers.
Something that could make things even easier is a degree of uniformity in reactor design and construction, moving away from the custom designs. That's simple enough for the Navy, but might take more research for the commercial sector.
It's something of a niche unless/until nuclear costs less than conventional power over the life cycle. There are significant advantages to be had in nuclear power for carrier groups though, as it allows higher speeds and endurance and eliminates the need for frequent refueling and defense of refueling ships. Fuel is a much larger limitation than munitions, and since munitions are consumed more slowly a ship could follow the fleet with them and increase endurance to weeks without resupply.
Exactly. Expansion of the Navy nuclear program alongside commercial nuclear power would greatly improve economies of scale and the pool of qualified companies and workers.
He did establish a culture that has led to no nuclear accidents on USN ships and submarines though, which is beneficial. That record has allowed the Navy to continue its nuclear program without much public concern and continue reactor development in the United States.
eliminates the need for frequent refueling and defense of refueling ships. Fuel is a much larger limitation than munitions, and since munitions are consumed more slowly a ship could follow the fleet with them and increase endurance to weeks without resupply.
But will still need fuel for the aircraft. While a nuclear carrier can carry more fuel because it doesn't need to carry fuel for its engines. Flight ops burn a lot of gas.
But will still need fuel for the aircraft. While a nuclear carrier can carry more fuel because it doesn't need to carry fuel for its engines. Flight ops burn a lot of gas.
Delta Force
Banned
According to this book, the Nimitz class holds 2,900 tons of aviation ordnance and 3.5 million gallons (13.2 million liters) of jet fuel. JP-5 weighs 6.8 pounds per gallon (0.81 kg/l), so that's around 23,800,000 pounds/11,900 tons (10,692 metric tons) of jet fuel. Certainly a large amount of fuel and ordnance, but a resupply ship could accompany the carrier strike group to supply it.
Also, I haven't been able to find information on the fuel load carried by USN ships, but I did find this article about the frequent need for refueling. It includes this bit:
That implies a total fuel cost of $15,625,000 per year, or 139,335 barrels of oil per year. With 7.4 barrels of oil in a ton, each ship requires approximately 18,829 tons of oil per year. Assume each ship is used for six months out of the year, and it's refueled each week. That means each ship requires 3,138 tons of fuel per week on average, likely much higher if involved in combat operations. There are four to five escort ships. The fuel and ordnance reserves on the Nimitz last something like 16 days, so to make things more simple we'll split it in half. Every week, the carrier strike group will need 18,502 to 21,640 tons of fuel and 1,450 tons of aviation ordnance.
Essentially, every week the carrier strike group would need a visit from a ~50,000 ton (loaded) Sacramento or Supply class ship. If only aviation fuel and ordnance were carried, a ship of similar size could maintain fleet operations for a month to a month and a half.
A nuclear powered resupply ship could accompany the carrier strike group to meet its requirements, significantly reducing the need for resupply. For purposes of redundancy and size, it's likely two ships would be used. They would rival an aircraft carrier in size, but that's something that is feasible.
Alternatively, a conventional tanker could arrive every month with supplies for the air group. That's a massive operational advantage over having to arrange refueling every few days, and air operations are a more predictable and constant demand than the propulsion demands of a ship. There's less of a chance for the tankers to lead the enemy to the carrier strike group, less vulnerability to supply disruption, and less need for escorts. Logistics are a major part of war, especially modern war, and having a supply chain that is less vulnerable and requires less forces to defend means more forces can be put on the line. It's a big force multiplier, that's what I meant when by saying there are some significant advantages besides the direct advantages in terms of ship endurance.
GAO 1998- Conventional vs Nuke carriers
http://fas.org/man/gao/nsiad98001/ns98001.pdf
CBO 2011- future nuke surface ships
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41454
Last edited:
Hey guys, US Navy nuclear operator here. I am worried you guys are getting crazy ideas in your head like, "Molten salt reactors." I would like to tell you that the US Navy loves pressurized water reactors, for use in naval warfare they are extremely safe relatively to other reactors.
Also you should take into account the nuclear crew of the fleet. The nuclear training pipeline can only push through so many students a year and the nuclear fleet in perpetually undermanned. The more operators you want, the more students you need, but there are only so many instructors, so pushing more students through doesn't work until you get more instructors and pull guys from meaningful jobs.
If you guys want any views from the enlisted side of the nuclear fleet, just ask.
Also you should take into account the nuclear crew of the fleet. The nuclear training pipeline can only push through so many students a year and the nuclear fleet in perpetually undermanned. The more operators you want, the more students you need, but there are only so many instructors, so pushing more students through doesn't work until you get more instructors and pull guys from meaningful jobs.
If you guys want any views from the enlisted side of the nuclear fleet, just ask.
Welcome to the board. Pull up a chair, and have a virtual drink on me.
Thank you for the voice of personal experience.
Delta Force
Banned
Molten salt reactors have some beneficial qualities relative to the PWR type reactors (which will also see service in the USN in this timeline) due to their low pressure design, high power in a relatively compact and lightweight design, and the ease of refueling. They were also historically developed in our own timeline for the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program and Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment. Since naval reactors use 90% enriched fuel the problems with radioactive waste management wouldn't be there, and thus there wouldn't need to be a chemical plant specified to remove them as there would be with MSR designs used less enriched fuel.
Also, the USN did experiment with the sodium cooled reactor design with USS Seawolf, and the USN settled on the PWR standard when it proved unsatisfactory. Perhaps this timeline could see Seawolf equipped with an MSR design, which is more fundamentally sound than the sodium cooled designs. Alternatively (and more likely) I'm thinking of having it introduced into the fleet on one of the experimental submarines of the 1960s.
That's true, but the PoD is in the 1950s and nuclear power will be more widespread in general. The training and personnel infrastructure can scale with the size of the nuclear powered fleet.
Thanks for the offer. It's always useful to hear from someone with firsthand experience.
Why has noone told me about this before? Those sounds great to work with!
That sounds like a smart move.
According to everything i witnessed, it doesn't scale well!
Delta Force
Banned
MSR technology only had a base of support at Oak Ridge. Weinberg, the director at Oak Ridge, was able to secure a contract with the USAF to develop it for a nuclear powered bomber, but MSR technology never saw that level of priority again. It also wasn't able to find a base in the USN because Rickover had settled on PAR technology after the problems with Seawolf.
I was only a surface sailor but in IMO, you are just not going to be able to justify nukes on your greyhound fleet. Right now the Navy is trying to move from solely gas turbines to a GT/Diesel mix like they had on FFG's. As long as the rest of the world is still burning hydrocarbons, the Navy will have access to fuel no matter where it's deployed.
Also, in a non-wartime situation, Carriers UNREP for JP5 every 4 days while deployed, small boys will typically go about 5-8 days (not allowed to go below 50%). And I also concur with what the other sailors have said regarding personnel in TTL, the ability to train and retain nuke qualified sailors would be daunting.
Also, in a non-wartime situation, Carriers UNREP for JP5 every 4 days while deployed, small boys will typically go about 5-8 days (not allowed to go below 50%). And I also concur with what the other sailors have said regarding personnel in TTL, the ability to train and retain nuke qualified sailors would be daunting.
Would there be more nuclear powered merchant ships like the Savannah? or maybe have nuclear powered underway replenishment ships. There were drawings of a nuclear powered liner.
Do you have a source for a higher res version or any further information really on a nuclear liner? That's a concept I'd really like to play with actually...
Realistically the biggest opportunity I see for getting more nuclear merchant vessels would be if the Algol class had been built as nuclear, probably with more navy involvement and some idea of being cargo liners. It's a stretch definitely, but seems the best shot.
Delta Force
Banned
On the topic of molten salt reactors for naval propulsion, I happened to come across a paper on the very topic.
Dont forget the Italian Line designed the Leonardo da Vinci, the ship featured numerous technological innovations, including provisions for conversion to run on nuclear power