Alt 60s US Navy

[Scott Kenny]

After watching the Fallout TV show I've been playing Fallout 4 with its atom-punk aesthetic, which had got me thinking how far nuclear power could stretch in reality.

USS America and JFK could have been nuclear powered, particularly JFK if the USN was able to give a good justification to Mac around costs over whole of life. If the USN got another nuke carrier or to a handful more nuke cruisers wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

IIUC the USN also had a destroyer reactor in development in the early 60s so there might be a small chance of a class of nuclear-powered destroyers as small as 4,000t.

Remember that "destroyer" plant was intended for DLGs, which got re-designated Cruisers in 1975.

So we're talking USS Bainbridge, which was a heavily modified Leahy-class. Leahy-class were 7800 tons, Bainbridge was 9100.
USS Truxtun was a heavily modified Belknap-class, and was 1200 tons heavier than a Belknap at 8700 tons.
California-class DLGNs were 10,600tonnes.
Virginia-class DLGNs were 10,660tonnes.

 

[Rule of cool]

Remember that "destroyer" plant was intended for DLGs, which got re-designated Cruisers in 1975.

So we're talking USS Bainbridge, which was a heavily modified Leahy-class. Leahy-class were 7800 tons, Bainbridge was 9100.
USS Truxtun was a heavily modified Belknap-class, and was 1200 tons heavier than a Belknap at 8700 tons.
California-class DLGNs were 10,600tonnes.
Virginia-class DLGNs were 10,660tonnes.

Firstly, I love that the USN closed the 'cruiser gap' by reclassification of DLG Frigates to CG Cruisers. Brilliant!

Secondly I only have a vague recollection of the destroyer nuke plant, I saw it while looking into the A3W evolution. However I'm sure it was for ships smaller the DLGs, so small that it impacted stability or something.

 

[MrTopaz]

Firstly, I love that the USN closed the 'cruiser gap' by reclassification of DLG Frigates to CG Cruisers. Brilliant!

Secondly I only have a vague recollection of the destroyer nuke plant, I saw it while looking into the A3W evolution. However I'm sure it was for ships smaller the DLGs, so small that it impacted stability or something.

This thread about the D1W reactor has some info on proposed expansion of USN surface ship nuclear power that includes some posts about the preferred ship types (I think they were originally hoping to develop something for the small, read: destroyer, end of the scale) as well as a reference to an initial reactor design that resulted in too high a center of gravity.

 

[Scott Kenny]

This thread about the D1W reactor has some info on proposed expansion of USN surface ship nuclear power that includes some posts about the preferred ship types (I think they were originally hoping to develop something for the small, read: destroyer, end of the scale) as well as a reference to an initial reactor design that resulted in too high a center of gravity.

I can't see a 1960s reactor delivering 60,000hp to the shaft(s) being small enough to fit into a ~4500 ton destroyer.

The S5W reactor was used in subs as small as 3500 tons, but only made 15,000hp to the shaft.

Why 60,000hp? That's what was installed in the Gearing class.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I can't see a 1960s reactor delivering 60,000hp to the shaft(s) being small enough to fit into a ~4500 ton destroyer.

The S5W reactor was used in subs as small as 3500 tons, but only made 15,000hp to the shaft.

Why 60,000hp? That's what was installed in the Gearing class.

That's basically what killed the nuclear DD/DDG. By the time you'd put a reactor in it, it was the size of a DLG, and you might as well arm it accordingly.

 

[Rule of cool]

I found what I was thinking about. P.145 and I've got my memories mixed up.

Apparently the USN was looking into a single reactor powerplant, instead of the 2 reactor powerplants in the Truxtan and Bainbridge. It turns out that the single reactor was to go into a Frigate (DLG), that ship would have been bigger than Truxtan/Bainbridge and the single reactor had a high centre of gravity. So, no go!

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This returns us to the requirement for 4 nuclear powered escorts per nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

• IOTL the plan was to order 6 CVAN FY58-63 at the rate of one per year, which produces a requirement for 24 DLGN by the late 1960s.
• In the event only 3 attack carriers were ordered FY58-63 and only one of them was nuclear powered, but only 2 DLGN were ordered instead of the required 4.
• Then the plan was to build one CVAN every other year starting FY65, but McNamara changed FY65, FY67 & FY69 to FY67, FY70 & FY71, but the CVAN planned for FY71 was put back to FY74 and was built as Carl Vinson.
• Long-lead items for DLGN-36 were authorised in FY66 and the ship was authorised in FY67.
  • This ship was built as California.
• Long-lead items for DLGN-37 were authorised in FY67 and the ship was authorised in FY68.
  • This ship was built as North Carolina.
• Long-lead items for DLGN-38 were authorised in FY68 but the ship wasn't authorised in FY69.
  • This ship was to have been the third California class, but it became the first DXGN.
• Then the DoD/Navy tried to get DLGN-37 & 38 built as DXGNs (Virginia class) with a total of 5 DXGN authorised FY68-71, which with Bainbridge, Truxtun & California would have made a total 8 DLGN.
• In the event DLGN-37 was built to the same design as California and DLGN-38 became the first of 4 DXGN (Virginia class), but instead the first 2 being authorised in FY70 and the second 2 being authorised in FY71, they were authorised FY70, 71, 72 & 75. A fifth DXGN was proposed for FY76, but Congress didn't fund it. That was in part because the first Nuclear Strike Cruiser (CSGN) was proposed for FY77.
• At one time 12 DXGN were planned which, with Bainbridge, Truxton, California & North Carolina, would have made a total of 16 DLGN which with Enterprise and the first 3 Nimitzs would have allowed the formation of 4 all-nuclear attack carrier groups.
• According to Jane's 1976-77 the first CSGN was proposed for FY77 (to complete 1984), the second was planned for FY81 (to complete 1986) and a total of 8 were planned. Maybe the 8 CSGN took the place of the 8 DXGN that weren't built.

However, this is a "money no object" thread so 6 CVAN are authorised FY58-63 and 24 DLGN were authorised FY58-63 as well to allow the formation of 6 all-nuclear attack carrier groups. The 24 DLGN would be a mix of Bainbridge and Truxtun class ships with a corresponding reduction in the number of Leany and Belknap class DLGs.

What happens next depends upon the tempo of CVAN construction.

If they order another 3 CVAN FY64-66 another 12 Truxtun class DLGN would be ordered FY64-66 to screen them. The result would be 15 supercarriers by the end of the 1960s and 36 DLGNs of the Bainbridge & Truxtun classes to screen the 9 that were nuclear powered. If that happens there's probably a long break in CVAN construction while a number of SCB.100 class CVS were built to replace the Essex class CVS. Then construction of CVANs would resume with an initial run of 6 ships built at two-year intervals to replace the 6 fossil-fuelled supercarriers and 24 DLGN would be built to screen them. Most (if not all) would be Strike Cruisers and the remainder would be DXGNs. The change from DXGN to CSGN depends upon how many SCB.100s were built, the tempo they were built at and when construction of CVANs resumes.

If they order 3 CVAN FY65, 67 & 69 (to replace the Midway class) and follow them with 6 CVAN (to replace the Forrestal & Kitty Hawk classes) FY71 to FY81 for a total of 9 CVAN at the rate of one every 2 years then the tempo of DLGN construction reduces to 2 per year from FY64 with a total of 36 ordered to FY81. In that case they'd initially built more Truxtun class until the California design was ready in FY67, then the DXGN in FY69 or 70 and finally the CSGN in FY77. That produces a total of 6 Truxtun, 4-6 California class, 14-16 DXGN and 10 CSGN.

However, I don't like the California class. I'd prefer to build a double-ended "Super Truxtun" with one 5in gun & one Mk 10 GMLS (40 reloads) forward with the same armament aft until the Virginia design was ready. Even better have the Mk 26 GMLS invented early enough for all the DLGNs authorised from FY64 to be DXGNs until the CSGN design was ready.

Except, that I'd prefer that both Mk 26 GMLS on the DXGN have a magazine capacity of 44 missiles ITTL and have a conventional hangar and flight deck for the helicopters, which effectively makes them the Improved Virginia proposed in the 1980s, without AEGIS. However, AEGIS could be fitted at a later date and at the same time a pair of 61-cell Mk 41 launchers replace the Mk 26s.

Which brings me to this quote.

Aegis could probably have entered service by the mid-1970s at the latest if there hadn't been a decade of wasted time constantly changing what type of ship it would have been fitted to.

If that's correct (and as this is a money no object thread) does that mean the CSGN or something like it built a decade earlier?

Edit: 19.03.25

Some typos and arithmetical errors that I didn't spot before uploading the message were corrected. These corrections were made before I read the comments about this message.

 

[Rule of cool]

However, I don't like the California class.

Why not? Is it the Mk 13s?

I don't have an opinion either way but read that this class showed that nuclear surface ships could be if not 'mass produced' at least built continuously as classes instead of one-offs.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

However, I don't like the California class. I'd prefer to build a double-ended "Super Truxtun" with one 5in gun & one Mk 10 GMLS (40 reloads) forward with the same armament aft until the Virginia design was ready.

I'd disagree with that, the California class with their four SPG-51s and pair of rapid-firing Mk 13s will offer very good anti-saturation capacity against pop-up threats like SS-N-9s launched from Charlies, especially important pre-Aegis. The Mk 10 GMLS has too slow a rate of fire, and with improved variants of Tartar and SM-1MR offering as much range as the original Terrier, the range advantage offered by the Terrier Frigates over the original Tartar ships is no longer necessary.

Of course if Typhon works, you can have your cake and eat it, SCB 227 and 240.65 have a Mk 10 with 60 missiles for long range work (although I imagine it would be split between 20 ASROCs and 40 Typhon-LRs) and a pair of Mk 14s with 80 Typhon-MRs between them for close range anti-saturation volume.

Even better have the Mk 26 GMLS invented early enough for all the DLGNs authorised from FY64 to be DXGNs until the CSGN design was ready.

Except, that I'd prefer that both Mk 26 GMLS on the DXGN have a magazine capacity of 44 missiles ITTL and have a conventional hangar and flight deck for the helicopters, which effectively makes them the Improved Virginia proposed in the 1980s, without AEGIS. However, AEGIS could be fitted and at the same time a pair of 61-cell Mk 41 launchers at a later date.

Which brings me to this quote.

If that's correct (and as this is a money no object thread) does that mean the CSGN or something like it built a decade earlier?

DG(N), the Aegis-equipped DLGN that eventually grew in to CSGN had two 64-missile Mk 26 launcher, although this was at the expense of having no gun armament other than CIWS.

An earlier Aegis means they are still trying to shoehorn it onto a Virginia hull, will I doubt they'll successfully do, if they're willing to let the ship grow you could get an earlier DG(N).

 

[isayyo2]

However, I don't like the California class. I'd prefer to build a double-ended "Super Truxtun" with one 5in gun & one Mk 10 GMLS (40 reloads) forward with the same armament aft until the Virginia design was ready. Even better have the Mk 26 GMLS invented early enough for all the DLGNs authorised from FY64 to be DXGNs until the CSGN design was ready.

I used to think the same until I made this thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/california-and-virginia-classes-hobbled-by-armament.35366/

The SM-1/RIM-66B had ranges exceeding most Terrier variants in a much smaller form-factor not requiring finning. The California in some cases exceeded the Virginia with 80 RIM-66 and 24 ASROC vs 64 ASROC and RIM-66. As stated already the California also had more guidance channels with 4 SPG-51s and 1 SPG-60. The Virginia in theory had space for LAMPS, though not practical; however Belknap proved DASH/LAMPS operations were capable of a DLGN.

Except, that I'd prefer that both Mk 26 GMLS on the DXGN have a magazine capacity of 44 missiles ITTL and have a conventional hangar and flight deck for the helicopters, which effectively makes them the Improved Virginia proposed in the 1980s, without AEGIS. However, AEGIS could be fitted and at the same time a pair of 61-cell Mk 41 launchers at a later date.

I'll re-voice the question if SCANFAR could produce 80% results of what Typhon was supposed to achieve?
Take any Typhon DLGN and swap in Digital/solid-state SCANFAR with SPG-51/55 and call it a day?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Why not? Is it the Mk 13s?

Because it fires Tatar/Standard MR not Terrier/Standard ER and it cant fire ASROC like Mk 26 can too.

I don't have an opinion either way but read that this class showed that nuclear surface ships could be if not 'mass produced' at least built continuously as classes instead of one-offs.

I find that funny-peculiar. They were able to do it for submarines. Why should it be different for surface ships?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'd disagree with that, the California class with their four SPG-51s and pair of rapid-firing Mk 13s will offer very good anti-saturation capacity against pop-up threats like SS-N-9s launched from Charlies, especially important pre-Aegis. The Mk 10 GMLS has too slow a rate of fire, and with improved variants of Tartar and SM-1MR offering as much range as the original Terrier, the range advantage offered by the Terrier Frigates over the original Tartar ships is no longer necessary.

That's new to me. So I'll have to take your word for it.

Could the DLGNs authorised FY64-66 have been built to the California design ITTL? I had them built as additional Truxtuns because I thought the OTL California design didn't exist in 1963. However, all the stuff needed to build a California (like the D2G nuclear reactor and Mk 13 GMLS) existed in 1963 so it's feasible that the California class or something very much like it could have been designed in the early 1960s.

However, my preferred solution is still to build more DXGNs instead of the California class and if possible the DLGNs authorised FY64-66. Furthermore, the TTL-DXGN is the enlarged version of the Virginia class described in Message 247.

Of course if Typhon works, you can have your cake and eat it, SCB 227 and 240.65 have a Mk 10 with 60 missiles for long range work (although I imagine it would be split between 20 ASROCs and 40 Typhon-LRs) and a pair of Mk 14s with 80 Typhon-MRs between them for close range anti-saturation volume.

That's new to me too, because I don't know much about Typhon, the ships that were planned or the numbers of Typhon ships that were planned. So I'll have to take your word for that too.

My follow-up questions are . . . Could Typhon have been made to work and put into service more-or-less on time? Or if they persist with Typhon, instead of cancelling it when they did, is the result, a system that is Aegis in all but name, entering service in the early 1970s instead of the early 1980s?

DG(N), the Aegis-equipped DLGN that eventually grew in to CSGN had two 64-missile Mk 26 launcher, although this was at the expense of having no gun armament other than CIWS.

Was the next step to add a MCLWG and "voilà" the CSGN?

An earlier Aegis means they are still trying to shoehorn it onto a Virginia hull, will I doubt they'll successfully do, if they're willing to let the ship grow you could get an earlier DG(N).

The short answer is that they were able to shoehorn Aegis into the DX hull to produce the CSG (Tinconderoga class) so why couldn't they do the same with the DXGN hull?

The long answer is that AFAIK the DXGN was designed to have Aegis installed during its first major refit. Furthermore, the TTL-DXGN has a larger hull because the forward magazine had a capacity of 44 missiles instead of 24 and as stated above (and in Message 247) which was the enlarged Virginia with Aegis in all but name and initially without Aegis.

However, now I'm thinking that the TTL DXGN has two Mk 26 GMLS (total 128 missiles), one MCLWG, proper facilities for two Sea King size helicopters and Aegis, with the first authorised in FY67 for completion in 1971-72 or put another way the OTL CSGN with the first ship authorised in FY67 instead of proposed & rejected in FY77.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I used to think the same until I made this thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/california-and-virginia-classes-hobbled-by-armament.35366/

The SM-1/RIM-66B had ranges exceeding most Terrier variants in a much smaller form-factor not requiring finning. The California in some cases exceeded the Virginia with 80 RIM-66 and 24 ASROC vs 64 ASROC and RIM-66. As stated already the California also had more guidance channels with 4 SPG-51s and 1 SPG-60. The Virginia in theory had space for LAMPS, though not practical; however Belknap proved DASH/LAMPS operations were capable of a DLGN.

I haven't had the opportunity to read the thread yet. In the mean time I'll take your word (and @A Tentative Fleet Plan's word) for it.

I'm aware of the DXGN's limited missile capacity and impractical helicopter facilities. That's why my version of the Virginia has 88 missiles and better helicopter facilities than the OTL-Virginia. You even quoted it in Message 250. Viz.

Except, that I'd prefer that both Mk 26 GMLS on the DXGN have a magazine capacity of 44 missiles ITTL and have a conventional hangar and flight deck for the helicopters, which effectively makes them the Improved Virginia proposed in the 1980s, without AEGIS. However, AEGIS could be fitted and at the same time a pair of 61-cell Mk 41 launchers at a later date.

I'll re-voice the question if SCANFAR could produce 80% results of what Typhon was supposed to achieve?

Don't know.

Take any Typhon DLGN and swap in Digital/solid-state SCANFAR with SPG-51/55 and call it a day?

In that case is there also no need for Aegis?

 

[Scott Kenny]

This returns us to the requirement for 4 nuclear powered escorts per nuclear powered aircraft carrier.

• IOTL the plan was to order 6 CVAN FY58-63 at the rate of one per year, which produces a requirement for 24 DLGN by the late 1960s.
• In the event only 3 attack carriers were ordered FY58-63 and only one of them was nuclear powered, but only 2 DLGN were ordered instead of the required 4.
• Then the plan was to build one CVAN every other year starting FY65, but McNamara changed FY65, FY67 & FY69 to FY67, FY70 & FY71, but the CVAN planned for FY71 was put back to FY74 and was built as Carl Vinson.
• Long-lead items for DLGN-36 were authorised in FY66 and the ship was authorised in FY67.
  • This ship was built as California.
• Long-lead items for DLGN-37 were authorised in FY67 and the ship was authorised in FY68.
  • This ship was built as North Carolina.
• Long-lead items for DLGN-38 were authorised in FY68 but the ship wasn't authorised in FY69.
  • This ship was to have been the third California class, but it became the first DXGN.
• Then the DoD/Navy tried to get DLGN-37 & 38 built as DXGNs (Virginia class) with a total of 5 DXGN authorised FY68-71, which with Bainbridge, Truxtun & California would have made a total 8 DLGN.
• In the event DLGN-37 was built to the same design as California and DLGN-38 became the first of 4 DXGN (Virginia class), but instead the first 2 being authorised in FY70 and the second 2 being authorised in FY71, they were authorised FY70, 71, 72 & 75. A fifth DXGN was proposed for FY76, but Congress didn't fund it. That was in part because the first Nuclear Strike Cruiser (CSGN) was proposed for FY77.
• At one time 12 DXGN were planned which, with Bainbridge, Truxton, California & North Carolina, would have made a total of 16 DLGN which with Enterprise and the first 3 Nimitzs would have allowed the formation of 4 all-nuclear attack carrier groups.
• According to Jane's 1976-77 the first CSGN was proposed for FY77 (to complete 1984), the second was planned for FY81 (to complete 1986) and a total of 8 were planned. Maybe the 8 CSGN took the place of the 8 DXGN that weren't built.

However, this is a "money no object" thread so 6 CVAN are authorised FY58-63 and 24 DLGN were authorised FY58-63 as well to allow the formation of 6 all-nuclear attack carrier groups. The 24 DLGN would be a mix of Bainbridge and Truxtun class ships with a corresponding reduction in the number of Leany and Belknap class DLGs.

Agreed here.

Leahy and Belknap classes effectively = Bainbridge and Truxtun classes, just different power sources. (two nuke plants are HEAVY, but the equipment those nuke plants are driving around is the same)

This plan makes Rickover a happy man!

What happens next depends upon the tempo of CVAN construction.

If they order another 3 CVAN FY64-66 another 12 Truxtun class DLGN would be ordered FY64-66 to screen them. The result would be 15 supercarriers by the end of the 1960s and 36 DLGNs of the Bainbridge & Truxtun classes to screen the 9 that were nuclear powered. If that happens there's probably a long break in CVAN construction while a number of SCB.100 class CVS were built to replace the Essex class CVS. Then construction of CVANs would resume with an initial run of 6 ships built at two-year intervals to replace the 6 fossil-fuelled supercarriers and 24 DLGN would be built to screen them. Most (if not all) would be Strike Cruisers and the remainder would be DXGNs. The change from DXGN to CSGN depends upon how many SCB.100s were built, the tempo they were built at and when construction of CVANs resumes.

If they order 3 CVAN FY65, 67 & 69 (to replace the Midway class) and follow them with 6 CVAN (to replace the Forrestal & Kitty Hawk classes) FY71 to FY81 for a total of 9 CVAN at the rate of one every 2 years then the tempo of DLGN construction reduces to 2 per year from FY64 with a total of 36 ordered to FY81. In that case they'd initially built more Truxtun class until the California design was ready in FY67, then the DXGN in FY69 or 70 and finally the CSGN in FY77. That produces a total of 6 Truxtun, 4-6 California class, 14-16 DXGN and 10 CSGN.

How many CVS were seen as necessary? 3? 6?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Well, we’ve got plenty of bearded nobodies who occupied the presidency in the 19th century.

USS James A. Garfield CVN-59: “I Hate Mondays”

Seriously though, he was a far better President than many historians have given him credit for.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I find that funny-peculiar. They were able to do it for submarines. Why should it be different for surface ships?

To cut a long story short, there were dodgy politics and accounting maneuvers in play. Basically, the navy sacrificed the DLGN / CGN-38 program in order to save the CVN-68 (Nimitz) program despite the fact that the former were intended as vital escorts for the latter, using falsehoods about the affordability & maintainability of nuclear surface ships below supercarrier size that lasted up to around the mid-1980s.

A little bit of the background can be found here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/nuclear-usn-pre-nam-early-60s-cbg-plans.6871/#post-689342