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 Leahy 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

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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!

Typo corrected.

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

The short answer is 6. Writing the messages about the DLGNs stopped me writing the planned message containing the long answer.

 

[MrTopaz]

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?

No chance of Typhon being made to work, so far as I know. Not even in a money is no object scenario. I’m not a radar technician, and I’m working from memory, but as I understand it the use of the Luneberg lens and the comparatively primitive state of a lot of power electronics necessitated an unhappy compromise in what radar band the system operated in, which compromised the utility of getting everything in a unified search, track, and fire control system in the first place. I gather that the necessary advancements in materials for transmitters that would have permitted this sort of system to work (if it’s even possible) could not realistically be expected to come to fruition until the 70s.

I take your second question to mean, “if they had persisted with it, could important lessons and technical developments from a failed Typhon program be rolled into an Aegis-like program that produces results faster,” and the answer is a qualified… maybe? I think that’s sort of what actually happened, just with an earlier end to Typhon and a later start to Aegis. I think the consensus is that the Typhon program showed you how not to make an all singing, all dancing fleet air defense system, but I’m guessing some of the ancillary equipment from Typhon (I’m thinking the computers that processed all the signals, things like that) probably weren’t dead-ends the way the primary radar system was. So, in a money is no object scenario, I don’t think it’s crazy to imagine some administrative/tech developmental alchemy where experience with the planar arrays of Scanfar (particularly in this scenario where there’s a lot more of those systems in service) combines with the ancillary processing systems from a Typhon program that got more development, and having them come together in an Aegis-by-another-name system several years before Aegis hit the fleet IOTL, but I don’t know how much earlier we could plausibly expect this to happen.

(Edited a couple of typos)

 

[Archibald]

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

He brought lasagna as a meal to every school in the country.

 

[Rule of cool]

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

Until the Californias it hadn't been done with carriers or cruisers, each cruiser until then had been different and both attempts to build a nuclear carrier after Enterprise had failed. My guess is that by about 1963 a couple things were decided on; the Typhoon was cancelled and Standard begun and the single reactor powerplant was dropped which cleared the way for multiple ship classes of CGNs. Carriers were the same once the A4W powerplant matured.

 

[CV12Hornet]

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.

Sort of? The DLGNs authorized in FY 64-66 were Typhon ships completely unrelated to the California lineage, which grew out of a parallel DDGN effort. You could slot them into the end of the Typhon buy, as the DDGNs were to be funded in FY66, if you can avoid McNamara dragging out the process.

At best you'd probably get seven ships - two in FY 66, three in FY 67, and two in FY 68 - before focus shifts to the Virginia class.

 

[MadRat]

What if the Navy focused on fast AA/ASW destroyers in the 1500 ton range protecting the perimeter, backed by 5000 ton missileers laying a picket to shield the greater core-protection provided by fast cruisers optimized for fleet tasks? WWII heavily relied on the smaller destroyers to localized project power and bigger, higher value assets to be the big stick. Not so sure 1500 ton destroyers in the 1960s lacked value. But the big destroyers over 5000 tons sure didnt serve long.

 

[CV12Hornet]

What if the Navy focused on fast AA/ASW destroyers in the 1500 ton range protecting the perimeter, backed by 5000 ton missileers laying a picket to shield the greater core-protection provided by fast cruisers optimized for fleet tasks? WWII heavily relied on the smaller destroyers to localized project power and bigger, higher value assets to be the big stick. Not so sure 1500 ton destroyers in the 1960s lacked value. But the big destroyers over 5000 tons sure didnt serve long.

1500-ton escorts are too small by the 1960s to be at all useful for fleet tasks. The USN had significant trouble fitting SQS-23 to anything smaller than a 3500-ton Gearing, and that was being superseded by the more capable but larger SQS-26. There's also no way to fit any sort of anti-air missile system that's not something like Seacat, nor a decent air search radar, meaning it's functionally useless as an AAW platform as well.

Notably, the closest the USN tried were the 2000-ton Claud Jones-class DEs and they were so unsatisfactory as ASW vessels (among other things they were only capable of 22 knots) that the design was tossed out and replaced in the queue by the 3000-ton Bronstein class.

On the opposite side of the spectrum the big cruisers very quickly were found to be too much ship. They were extremely expensive to both run and buy and did not offer much tactically over the DLGs. Not for nothing did the USN only build a single missile cruiser that wasn't a revamped WW2 hull.

Also, "the big destroyers over 5000 tons sure didnt serve long"? What on earth are you talking about? The Farragut, Leahy, and Belknap-classes all put in over 25 years of services. So did the later Spruances.

 

[uk 75]

Very interesting thread.
Would the Soviet Navy change as well or do we assume that the logic behind the surface ships ( Moskva to Kiev Kynda-Krestas-Kara) remains the same.
The heart of the 70s US Navy becomes the Spruance class in otl replacing the WW2 destroyers with some 30 ships. They are joined in the 80s by the low end Perry class and high end Ticos.
All the escort ships built from the 50s onwards stayed in service till the end of the Cold War because of the need for quantity as well as quality.
The need for a "Strike Cruiser" carrying a powerful area defence system (Aegis) and long range SSMs (Tomahawk) is met by devolving the latter capability on to ships like the Iowa's and Spruances while concentrating Aegis on a Spruance derived ship.
Developing Aegis sooner needs a major change in the pace of miniaturisation of electronics to get a production version in service.
The Spruance hull rather than the Virginia nuclear ship gives much greater numbers and flexibility for your money.
As an aside I always think the Seadart looks like a member of the Typhon family.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What if the Navy focused on fast AA/ASW destroyers in the 1500 ton range protecting the perimeter, backed by 5000 ton missileers laying a picket to shield the greater core-protection provided by fast cruisers optimized for fleet tasks? WWII heavily relied on the smaller destroyers to localized project power and bigger, higher value assets to be the big stick. Not so sure 1500 ton destroyers in the 1960s lacked value. But the big destroyers over 5000 tons sure didnt serve long.

You cannot fit adequate ASW gear alone into a 1500 ton 1960s tech ship. Nor can you fit even a small Terrier/Standard missile launcher plus radars in one.

The smallest size combined AA/ASW ship the US built in the 1960s was the 3300ton (light)/4500ton (full) Charles F. Adams class. Two 5"/54 Mk42, single Mk11 or Mk13 missile launcher, ASROC, hull sonar; no towed array or helicopter facilities.

If you give up on any AA capabilities, you're looking at about 2800 tons (light), as in the Forrest Sherman class. These started out with three 5"/54 Mk42, two dual 3"/50s, two hedgehog, four 21" torpedo tubes (and maybe two triple 12.75", wiki is not clear), hull sonar; no towed array or helicopter facilities. Then in the late 1960s eight hulls were converted to have two 5"/54 Mk42, an ASROC launcher, two triple 12.75" torpedo tubes, hull sonar, and a VDS; still no helicopter facilities, and they lost the 3" guns.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The short answer is 6.

So 2 out at one time, and I assume both in the Atlantic? Or was one LANT and one PAC?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So 2 out at one time, and I assume both in the Atlantic? Or was one LANT and one PAC?

Again, the short answer is, one Atlantic and one Pacific.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In reply to the replies by @isayyo2, @Rule of cool and @A Tentative Fleet Plan to Message 247 by me.

I've read the thread that @isayyo2 provided the link to and skimmed through the chapter on nuclear powered destroyers in the copy of Friedman's U.S. Destroyers on Scribd. The result is that my opinion of the California class remains the same, while the DXGN/Virginia class has gone so far down in my estimation that I now think the California class was better.

I thought the DXGN was a nuclear powered Kidd with rubbish helicopter facilities. That's because I thought that 2 Mk 26 launchers meant 4 SPG-51 radars instead of 2. According to Friedman the forward Mk 26 was mainly for ASROC which is why both SPG-51s were aft. So it looks like.

• 80 Standard MR with 4 SPG-51 and 24 ASROCs - California class.
• 44 Standard ER with 2 SPG-51 and 24 ASROCs - Virginia class.

The Virginia class now looks more like a modernised Truxtun to me. That is the faster firing Mk 26 launchers (68 reloads) replace the single Mk 10 launcher (60 reloads) with 2 SPG-51 instead of 2 SPG-55 and two 5in Mk 45 guns instead of the single 5in Mk 42.

Though my ALT-DXGN has a larger hull accommodating 4 SPG-51 radars, two Mk 26 launchers with 44 reloads each and a conventional hangar & flight deck for 2 Sea King size helicopters.

 

[Grey Havoc]

It should be noted though that among other things the Virginia-class was intended to be fitted with ASMS / Aegis from the start, but technical issues and political & budgetary shenanigans (increasingly the latter) kept scuppering that.

 

[Rule of cool]

I like the look of the Virginia class, its a clean, uncluttered looking ship.

Ostensibly it has the same D2Gs as the much earlier and smaller Truxtun etc, were they later versions making more power?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

It should be noted though that among other things the Virginia-class was intended to be fitted with ASMS / Aegis from the start, but technical issues and political & budgetary shenanigans (increasingly the latter) kept scuppering that.

Which is all the more reason to give them a decent number of missiles and a decent number of fire control radars.

 

[Grey Havoc]

It could actually carry more missiles, IIRC. The number (and type) of missiles allocated was a budgetary measure I believe.

 

[MadRat]

.Also, "the big destroyers over 5000 tons sure didnt serve long"? What on earth are you talking about? The Farragut, Leahy, and Belknap-classes all put in over 25 years of services. So did the later Spruances.

Most were re-invented to use completely different systems within 15 years of commissioning. That was a big scandal at the time because they were already less than ideal at time of inception but the Navy paid gold-plated prices. The complete overhauls literally changed the ships into guided missile cruisers, because as analysts predicted they were built to be light cruisers but provided with a destroyer label for political reasons.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I like the look of the Virginia class, its a clean, uncluttered looking ship.

Ostensibly it has the same D2Gs as the much earlier and smaller Truxtun etc, were they later versions making more power?

No, same rated power.

Most were re-invented to use completely different systems within 15 years of commissioning. That was a big scandal at the time because they were already less than ideal at time of inception but the Navy paid gold-plated prices. The complete overhauls literally changed the ships into guided missile cruisers, because as analysts predicted they were built to be light cruisers but provided with a destroyer label for political reasons.

A "destroyer" was an escort ship at the time. A "Cruiser" was a major command and flagship!

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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

This is Part 1 of the long answer.

The SCB.27 Essex class

IOTL 17 SCB.27 refits were authorised, as follows:

1 FY48 – Oriskany​

2 FY49 – Essex & Wasp​

2 FY50 – Kearsarge & Lake Champlain​

4 FY51 – Bennington, Hornet, Randolph & Yorktown​

4 FY52 – Hancock, Intrepid, Shangri-La & Tinconderoga​

4 FY53 – Bon Homme Richard, Bunker Hill, Franklin & Lexington​

However, only 15 of the 17 refits were carried out IOTL. The ships not refitted were Bunker Hill and Franklin. NB that I have no proof that Bunker Hill and Franklin were the third and fourth ships authorised in FY54. It's an uneducated guess.

Furthermore,

• 15 out of the 15 ships that actually had SCB.27 were to have angled flight decks fitted in SCB.125 refits. This included 3 ships that had their SCB.125s concurrently with their SCB.27 refits.
• 8 out of the 15 ships that actually had SCB.27 were to have steam catapults fitted.
  • 6 ships were to have them fitted as part of their SCB.27 refit.
    • And.
  • 2 ships were to have them fitted as part of their SCB125 refit.
• However, only 14 out of 15 ships had an angled flight deck fitted and only 7 out of 8 ships had steam catapults fitted.
• This was because the SCB.125 refit for Lake Champlain (which included the installation of steam catapults) was cancelled.

Therefore, a total of 15 ships had SCB.27 refits, of which.

• 1 had an axial flight deck and hydraulic catapults.
  • Lake Champlain.
• 7 had an angled flight deck and hydraulic catapults.
  • Essex, Bennington, Hornet, Kearsarge, Randolph, Wasp & Yorktown
• 7 had an angled flight deck and steam catapults.
  • Bon Homme Richard, Hancock, Intrepid, Lexington, Oriskany, Shangri-La & Tinconderoga.

ITTL 17 out of 17 authorised SCB.27 refits were carried out.

• 17 out of 17 ships had an angled flight deck fitted in a SCB.125 refit. This included 5 refits that were concurrent with their SCB.27 refit.
• 10 out of 17 ships had steam catapults fitted. That is 8 as part of their SCB.27 refit and 2 as part of their SCB.125 refit.

The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernisation Program IOTL

8 SCB.27 ships had FRAM II refits in the 1960s which were authorised FY61-66. They were the 7 ships with hydraulic catapults & angled flight decks and Intrepid. Lake Champlain was to have had one in FY66 (which IIRC included installing an angled flight deck) but it was cancelled.

The Fleet Rehabilitation and Modernisation Program ITTL

All other things being equal 9 ships had FRAM II refits in the 1960s (FY61-66) because Lake Champlain’s refit wasn’t cancelled ITTL.

More ships could have had FRAM refits ITTL because more money was available and the refits could be the more extensive FRAM I rather than FRAM II. However, more FRAM refits and more extensive FRAM refits were probably unnecessary due the construction of more Attack Carriers ITTL and the construction of a number of SCB.100 class ASW Support Carriers ITTL to replace the Essex class operating as CVS.

The Rest of the Essex class

IOTL and TTL Antietam didn’t have an SCB.27 refit, but was fitted with the prototype angled flight deck in 1952 and became a CVS in 1953. She became the training carrier in 1957 (relieving Saipan) but retained her CVS designation. She was relieved by Lexington in 1962 and paid off for the last time in 1963.

Boxer, Princeton & Valley Forge were re-designated CVS 1953-55 and LPHs 1959-61. They were converted to LPHs in SCB.144 refits FY61-62. To this point there was no difference between their OTL and TTL histories. What changes ITTL is that they weren’t paid off 1969-70 and instead remained in service until relieved by Tarawa class LHAs.

This leaves Leyte, Philippine Sea & Tarawa which became CVS 1953-55 and IOTL paid off 1958-60. ITTL they became LPHs 1959-61 and had SCB.144 refits. They remained in service until the early 1970s when they were relieved by Tarawa class LHAs. 2 of these 3 extra LPH conversions were in place of the Mariner class cargo ships that were converted to the APAs Paul Rivere and Francis Marion which instead were converted into AKAs like their sister Tulare.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Most were re-invented to use completely different systems within 15 years of commissioning. That was a big scandal at the time because they were already less than ideal at time of inception but the Navy paid gold-plated prices. The complete overhauls literally changed the ships into guided missile cruisers, because as analysts predicted they were built to be light cruisers but provided with a destroyer label for political reasons.

What on earth are you talking about? The fit of Standard? NTU?

Well, whatever you're referring to, no, the overhauls did not turn them into guided missile cruisers, they were redesignated as such as a political move. Nor were they called destroyers as a political move as built. The Terrier frigates were, at construction, always intended as a large fleet escort built to destroyer standards midway between the cruiser and destroyer in size, while the Spruances are quite directly destroyers in role and vision.

 

[uk 75]

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

 

[Rule of cool]

Just thinking about the DLG thing, the Destroyer-Destroyer leader paradigm seemed to continue after the war with the Mitscher - Forrest Sherman classes.

If the Adams class is a destroyer, which it obviously is then it seems logical that the bigger, more capable Farragut (and following classes) would be a destroyer leader, especially since it had no armour and a destroyer's 5" gun.

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.

 

[Yellow Palace]

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

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

Just thinking about the DLG thing, the Destroyer-Destroyer leader paradigm seemed to continue after the war with the Mitscher - Forrest Sherman classes.

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

 

[MrTopaz]

Just thinking about the DLG thing, the Destroyer-Destroyer leader paradigm seemed to continue after the war with the Mitscher - Forrest Sherman classes.

If the Adams class is a destroyer, which it obviously is then it seems logical that the bigger, more capable Farragut (and following classes) would be a destroyer leader, especially since it had no armour and a destroyer's 5" gun.

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

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.