US Navy Escort ships in the 60s and 70s

[uk 75]

Reading the excellent Friedman books on US Destroyers and US Cruisers as well as the History of the Spruance class-Electronic Greyhounds-forgot the author I am always fascinated by the range of options which the US Navy might have had in the 60s and 70s if there had been no Vietnam War to force the running on of its older ship classes.
Instead of the Knox class ASW ships might we have seen a more capable vessel like the various Seahawk designs.
Would additional Belknap hulls have been launched with Spruance style ASW armament. The early proposals for Spruance ships are very similar to Belknaps.
Would the nuclear escort programme which has a hiatus between the TRUXTUN and the California class have been faster? Might more money have been found and AEGIS been developed in time to go on the Virginia class.
The US Navy wanted a new class of CVS ASW ships to replace its wartime ships. Designs were drawn up. Could a ship capable of operating a mix of S3 Vikings and Seakings been able to enter service in the early 70s.
I love this period and the various designs that were proposed.

 

[pathology_doc]

Reading the excellent Friedman books on US Destroyers and US Cruisers as well as the History of the Spruance class-Electronic Greyhounds-forgot the author I am always fascinated by the range of options which the US Navy might have had in the 60s and 70s if there had been no Vietnam War to force the running on of its older ship classes.

Would the nuclear escort programme which has a hiatus between the TRUXTUN and the California class have been faster? Might more money have been found and AEGIS been developed in time to go on the Virginia class.

[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The question you have to ask here is "To what extent, and in what fashion, did the experience gained by the participation of the US armed forces in a shooting war against Soviet technology influence or shape the development of AEGIS?" Sure, there were no mass raids on US naval task forces akin to what might have been faced in World War Three, but IIRC both aircraft and missiles were engaged and destroyed by Terrier and Talos systems, and you can't tell me something wasn't learned out of all of that.[/font]

The US Navy wanted a new class of CVS ASW ships to replace its wartime ships. Designs were drawn up. Could a ship capable of operating a mix of S3 Vikings and Seakings been able to enter service in the early 70s.

IIRC the Brazilian Navy elected to go the ASW-only route with their ex-British carrier, operating a mix of fixed and rotary wing assets. The smaller US carriers were comparable in size and would have been perfect for this. All you have to decide then is where the attack, strike and air superiority elements these carriers previously managed are going to redeploy. Is a fast ASW carrier with a nuclear cruiser powerplant viable?

 

[Pioneer]

I think it was a great pity, that the USN couldn't stick with and field a 'true' nuclear-powered destroyer-sized design. Instead, as has always been the case with the USN post-WWII, this idea/theory evolved into a larger, heavier and much much more expensive designs that were infact 'cruiser-sized, displacement designs!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think it was a great pity, that the USN couldn't stick with and field a 'true' nuclear-powered destroyer-sized design. Instead, as has always been the case with the USN post-WWII, this idea/theory evolved into a larger, heavier and much much more expensive designs that were infact 'cruiser-sized, displacement designs!

The size of the USN nuclear destroyers was entirely set by their propulsion system. They couldn't make them smaller.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I think it was a great pity, that the USN couldn't stick with and field a 'true' nuclear-powered destroyer-sized design. Instead, as has always been the case with the USN post-WWII, this idea/theory evolved into a larger, heavier and much much more expensive designs that were infact 'cruiser-sized, displacement designs!

The size of the USN nuclear destroyers was entirely set by their propulsion system. They couldn't make them smaller.

Not necessarily. For example, there was a GE proposal to rebuild some of the USN's Fletchers with 4 601B pods (aka Nuclear Outboard Motors) apiece.

(H/t Orion)

 

[pathology_doc]

I recall reading that there was talk of an "all-nuclear navy" but it came to nothing. I suspect the cost of building and servicing the reactors for such a large fleet and the difficulty of getting enough appropriately-trained people to man them might have had something to do with it. And while there's flexibility in not having to refuel when you've been steaming at high speed for hours, eventually the fuel bill catches up with you when it's time to replenish the cores.


Then, in the sort of world we were living in, with the perceived need to make as many warheads of all types and sizes as we did, another question arises. To what do you devote your fissile material - high-level enrichment for warheads, or low-level enrichment for fuel rods? A good incentive to devote your surface nuclear propulsion resources to fleet carriers and large multi-role AA/ASW cruisers.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Stand assured that there is no way such a refractory metal reactor power pod could have been fielded in the 1960s or 70s. I doubt we could even produce a workable system today. File this in the flying saucer, silver jumpsuit concept folio.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I recall reading that there was talk of an "all-nuclear navy" but it came to nothing.

Yes, Rickover's original goal was to have all the capital ships in the USN be nuclear powered. All the carriers, and at least all their escorts, plus all the submarines.

Even now, I believe there's still a law on the books that makes the USN look at nuclear power for all the big ships. IIRC, on the America class LPHs, it was determined that nuclear power would have been more affordable only if crude oil was expected to reach and stay above $140/barrel for most of the ship's life.

I suspect the cost of building and servicing the reactors for such a large fleet and the difficulty of getting enough appropriately-trained people to man them might have had something to do with it.

Definitely a challenge finding enough people with brains wired the right way to want to be nukes.

And while there's flexibility in not having to refuel when you've been steaming at high speed for hours, eventually the fuel bill catches up with you when it's time to replenish the cores.


Then, in the sort of world we were living in, with the perceived need to make as many warheads of all types and sizes as we did, another question arises. To what do you devote your fissile material - high-level enrichment for warheads, or low-level enrichment for fuel rods? A good incentive to devote your surface nuclear propulsion resources to fleet carriers and large multi-role AA/ASW cruisers.

At least the subs stick with HEU as well, because that makes for fewer refuelings than LEU. Not sure about carriers, but I suspect they also are pretty highly enriched for minimal refueling overhauls. Only having to do one refueling overhaul due to using HEU cores instead of having to do an overhaul every 7 years or so is a huge improvement. And I believe the new plants for the Ford and Columbia classes are designed for life of ship, 40-50 years without refueling.

 

[pathology_doc]

And I believe the new plants for the Ford and Columbia classes are designed for life of ship, 40-50 years without refueling.

Sailing ships say "Hold my beer".

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sailing ships say "Hold my beer".

I'd believe it for the Columbias, they mostly go slow. We'll see if the engineers guessed right on the Fords.

Even the Ohios ran for more than 20 years without a refueling on 1970s plans.