Alt 60s US Navy

[Scott Kenny]

Is it fair to say that Long Beach was the only nuclear cruiser built?

By the US, correct.

Bainbridge and Truxtun were initially called frigates.

DL by hull type, spoken "frigate"

Why the USN called them Frigates is a mystery to me, although it was a confusing era with lots of new tech coming online and roles changing as a result.

It was a deliberate throwback to the Original Six Frigates of the USN.

(sail) Frigates were the strongest non-capital ship back in the day. But part of the definition of "Frigate" was that they had a full ship's sailing rig. When steam ships came around, the role of "biggest warship not a ship of the line" went to the ships called "cruisers" and the term "frigate" just wasn't used after the 1880s and the last sailing frigates left service. It wasn't until after WW2 that ASW Destroyer Escorts started being called Frigates in the European navies.

 

[Rule of cool]

was a deliberate throwback to the Original Six Frigates of the USN.

We're these one the ones that fought the battle of Penobscot? The Warren?

 

[MrTopaz]

We're these one the ones that fought the battle of Penobscot? The Warren?

No, that was the Revolutionary War. The Original Six were from the mid 1790s onward. They were the Constitution, President, Chesapeake, Congress, United States and Constellation. They were most famous for their actions in the War of 1812.

 

[Scott Kenny]

We're these one the ones that fought the battle of Penobscot? The Warren?

As MrTopaz said: Constitution, President, Congress, United States, Chesapeake, and Constellation. The only ships that the RN had to give orders to never face alone.

 

[Rule of cool]

In any case my query about nuclear destroyers turned out to be a dead end, there was no reactor for an actual destroyer sized ship, just options for DLGs. The best 'atom punk' would be for USS America to be a repeat of Enterprise and JFK to have A3Ws. 3 or 4 more nuclear DLGs to escort them, likely another Truxtun for America and an earlier Calfornia for JFK and the 5th Virginia gets built.

 

[MrTopaz]

In any case my query about nuclear destroyers turned out to be a dead end, there was no reactor for an actual destroyer sized ship, just options for DLGs. The best 'atom punk' would be for USS America to be a repeat of Enterprise and JFK to have A3Ws. 3 or 4 more nuclear DLGs to escort them, likely another Truxtun for America and an earlier Calfornia for JFK and the 5th Virginia gets built.

Well, I suppose if we really REALLY want to have a nuclear powered destroyer, you could opt for the so-called nuclear outboard motor (Medium.com link, but OrionBlamBlam did most of the work, I think), assuming you've got a very lax attitude towards disaster risks. And you don't feel the need to sneak up on anything, because I gather it would be quite noisy.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

By the US, anyway. I'd categorise the KIROV class as cruisers, as did the Soviet navy.


The MITSCHER class were rated as DL. The FORREST SHERMAN class were, broadly, the destroyers they were meant to lead.

Mitschers weren't Destroyer Leaders, they were still considered destroyers, they were designed before the term Frigate was used to describe DLs and DLGs, the difference between between the Mitschers and Forest Shermans was that the former were dedicated Fast Task Force Escorts (with an emphasis on things like high seakeeping speed, endurance and fighter direction, hence the SPS-8), the latter were cheaper general-purpose ships which were also supposed to be easier to mass-produce in wartime.

 

[Rule of cool]

Well, I suppose if we really REALLY want to have a nuclear powered destroyer, you could opt for the so-called nuclear outboard motor (Medium.com link, but OrionBlamBlam did most of the work, I think), assuming you've got a very lax attitude towards disaster risks. And you don't feel the need to sneak up on anything, because I gather it would be quite noisy.

Yeah.....naaaah.

It looks like the nuclear destroyer was a dud and I'm satisfied with that. However I would like to see a nuke America and JFK each with a pair of nuke escorts: 2 Truxtuns, 3 Calis and 5 Vrrginias.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Mitschers weren't Destroyer Leaders, they were still considered destroyers, they were designed before the term Frigate was used to describe DLs and DLGs

They were reclassified during build, but were certainly seen as something more than a run of the mill destroyer. The PORTER and SOMERS class were also considered leaders, but carried DD hull classification.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

They were reclassified during build, but were certainly seen as something more than a run of the mill destroyer. The PORTER and SOMERS class were also considered leaders, but carried DD hull classification.

They didn't have flag facilities to control flotillas of destroyers, and the main driver in size was the requirement for high seakeeping speed and endurance, they were originally an evolution of a. attempt to build a 40-knot destroyer that could maintain that speed in weather rougher than a flat calm, over long distances.

 

[uk 75]

In practice the US had sufficient nuclear escorts (assuming two each) for Enterprise (Long Beach and Bainbridge) Nimitz (Truxtun and California) Eisenhower (S Carolina and Virginia) Vinson (,Texas and Arkansas/Miss)
In the gap before Washington and T Roosevelt enter service nuke escorts give way to CG47s on cost grounds.
If the Enterprise had been followed by nuclear Kennedy and America (CVAN66 and 67) there would have been either four Typhon DLGN or four Truxtun/California's needed.
The Knox class ASW frigates might have been replaced by the Seahawk destroyers.

 

[isayyo2]

Yeah.....naaaah.

It looks like the nuclear destroyer was a dud and I'm satisfied with that. However I would like to see a nuke America and JFK each with a pair of nuke escorts: 2 Truxtuns, 3 Calis and 5 Vrrginias.

Not quite a dud, just an expensive ship with somewhat marginal capabilities...
See my post from 2023: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/alt-60s-us-navy.37487/page-3#post-599791

For FY67, the planned DDG was $84 million, DDGN (same capabilities) $139 million, and DLGN (California) $150 million. The acquisition cost of DDGN to DLGN was minor in comparison to the jump from DDG to DDGN.

Now in a *money no object* line of thought, a DDGN powered by a single 90,000shp D1W with 2x 5"/54s, 1x Tartar, and 1x ASROC with DASH or LAMPS could be an interesting escort.

 

[Scott Kenny]

For FY67, the planned DDG was $84 million, DDGN (same capabilities) $139 million, and DLGN (California) $150 million. The acquisition cost of DDGN to DLGN was minor in comparison to the jump from DDG to DDGN.

Which honestly suggests building DLGNs only, and conventional DDGs as the "normal" carrier group.

Now in a *money no object* line of thought, a DDGN powered by a single 90,000shp D1W with 2x 5"/54s, 1x Tartar, and 1x ASROC with DASH or LAMPS could be an interesting escort.

If you could make that work? Absolutely. Especially if you can mass produce those, on the scale of S5W reactors.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The Knox class ASW frigates might have been replaced by the Seahawk destroyers.

Project Seahawk was more a replacement for fleet ASW escorts like the Gearing FRAMs

 

[chimeric oncogene]

Yeah.....naaaah.

It looks like the nuclear destroyer was a dud and I'm satisfied with that. However I would like to see a nuke America and JFK each with a pair of nuke escorts: 2 Truxtuns, 3 Calis and 5 Vrrginias.

They did some work on nuclear gas turbines as drop-in replacements for LM2500s.
A nuclear destroyer is probably quite possible even with a traditional PWR, you just need scale (i.e. a nice big production run of 40 ships)...

 

[Scott Kenny]

They did some work on nuclear gas turbines as drop-in replacements for LM2500s.
A nuclear destroyer is probably quite possible even with a traditional PWR, you just need scale (i.e. a nice big production run of 40 ships)...

I dunno, you need a large plant to make 60,000hp. (Using 60khp because that's what was installed on the Gearing-class).

And while yes, the US has built single reactors making 60khp, the "mass production" reactor of the time was 15khp in the S5W.

 

[apparition13]

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it explicitly written, but somewhere along the way I picked up the idea that they chose “frigates” because, in the last half century of the age of sail (or perhaps even further back), frigates were a powerful unit capable of independent operations while not quite being big enough for the line of battle. Similarly, these frigates would (like age of sail frigates) be large enough that they had some measure of prestige and a greater capacity to operate without support (compared to WW2 vintage destroyers), while not quite being on the level of a cruiser (which occupies the “big enough for the line of battle” spot in our analogy with the age of sail). It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think that’s what was going on.

The real confusion is Frigates were cruisers, their job was cruising. Frankly it would have made more sense to call the ships that were called cruisers in the 1890s and since Frigates, since the job was the same.

 

[chimeric oncogene]

I dunno, you need a large plant to make 60,000hp. (Using 60khp because that's what was installed on the Gearing-class).

Westinghouse claimed they could get LM2500 performance in a 300 metric tonne plant, and that includes shielding.

Reactors by their nature can be very power dense - up to many hundreds of megawatts per tonne of reactor, for a nuclear rocket engine. The plan was to use gas cooled reactors based on those used for aircraft and spacecraft nuclear propulsion. The Westinghouse proposal was based on the nerva reactor, as you should recall from the other thread.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/advanced-maritime-nuclear-propulsion-engines.31926/

 

[MrTopaz]

The real confusion is Frigates were cruisers, their job was cruising. Frankly it would have made more sense to call the ships that were called cruisers in the 1890s and since Frigates, since the job was the same.

I can't remember what I was reading, but it was some comment from a naval officer in the mid 1800s talking about "cruisers" when he was clearly discussing frigates, and I just thought, "oh, buddy. You don't know what confusion is coming down the pipeline, but you are not helping at all."

 

[Scott Kenny]

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

It was actually planned, there were 40x DLGNs planned, plus shore-side training equipment.

But Vietnam ate the budget.

Is it fair to say that Long Beach was the only nuclear cruiser built? Bainbridge and Truxtun were initially called frigates.

Correct, Long Beach was designed as a cruiser hull, and her powerplant is C1W.

I don’t know that I’ve ever seen it explicitly written, but somewhere along the way I picked up the idea that they chose “frigates” because, in the last half century of the age of sail (or perhaps even further back), frigates were a powerful unit capable of independent operations while not quite being big enough for the line of battle. Similarly, these frigates would (like age of sail frigates) be large enough that they had some measure of prestige and a greater capacity to operate without support (compared to WW2 vintage destroyers), while not quite being on the level of a cruiser (which occupies the “big enough for the line of battle” spot in our analogy with the age of sail). It’s not a perfect analogy, but I think that’s what was going on.

That's what I've heard as well. I think some of that is in the wiki about the 1975 USN Ship Reclassification.

The real confusion is Frigates were cruisers, their job was cruising. Frankly it would have made more sense to call the ships that were called cruisers in the 1890s and since Frigates, since the job was the same.

But the definition of Frigate was "has a full ship's sailing rig". And IIRC there were still a few sailing frigates around in the 1890s, as well as many sailors who had served on sailing frigates now in senior roles being very firm about how no ship without sails at all is a frigate!